FILE nes04int.txt
-----------------
2004 American National Election Study (2004.T)
Codebook introduction file
VERSION 20050816 (Aug 16, 2005)














                 AMERICAN NATIONAL ELECTION STUDIES:

                     2004 PRE-POST ELECTION STUDY












 
                               CODEBOOK











                     Center for Political Studies
                     Institute for Social Research
                      The University of Michigan





                         

CITATION



The National Election Studies (www.umich.edu/~nes). THE 2004 NATIONAL 
ELECTION STUDY [dataset]. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Center for 
Political Studies [producer and distributor].

These materials are based on work supported by the National Science 
Foundation under grant SES-0118451, and the University of Michigan.

Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in these
materials are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the
views of the funding organizations.

                          2004 NES CODEBOOK
                           TABLE OF CONTENTS
                          ==================

The 2004 Codebook comprises 3 files : NES04INT.TXT  Introduction [this file]
                                      NES04VAR.TXT  Variable Documentation
                                      NES04APP.TXT  Appendices

Note:  sections in the current file can be navigated by searching ">>".



2004 CODEBOOK INTRODUCTION (file "NES04INT.TXT")
------------------------------------------------
>> 2004 General Introduction
>> 2004 Study Description
>> 2004 Study Design, Content and Administration
        >> 2004 Study Design
        >> 2004 Study Content
        >> 2004 Study Administration
>> 2004 Special Note about Texas incumbents
>> 2004 National Election Study Sample Design
        >> Study Population
        >> Multi-Stage Area Probability Design
        >> Sample Design Assumptions, Specifications, and Outcomes
        >> Post-Election Sample Outcomes
        >> Weighted Analysis
        >> Construction of Analysis Weights
        >> Procedures for Sampling Error Estimation
>> 2004 Note on Confidential Materials
>> 2004 File Structure and Processing information
>> 2004 Codebook Information (how to read)
>> 2004 Variable Description List



2004 VARIABLE DOCUMENTATION (file "NES04VAR.TXT")
-------------------------------------------------
V040001 - V041214a  Identification, Weights, and Study Descriptive
V042001 - V042428   Pre-Election Administrative
V043001 - V043413g  Pre-Election Survey
V044001 - V044517d  Post-Election Administrative
V045001 - V045308g  Post-Election Survey



2004 CODEBOOK APPENDICES (file "NES04APP.TXT")
----------------------------------------------
>> 2004 Census (2000) Combined Statistical Area
>> 2004 Candidate Number Master Code (House and Senate)
>> 2004 Type Race Master Code (House and Senate)
>> 2004 Party-Candidate Master Code ('Likes-Dislikes')
>> 2004 Religion Master Code
>> 2004 Census 2000 Occupation Master Code
>> 2004 Census 2000 Industry Master Code
>> 2004 Census 1990 Occupation Master Code
>> 2004 Ethnicity Master Code
>> 2004 ICSPR State and Country Master Code
>> 2004 Cities Master Code
>> 2004 Most Important Problem Master Code
Note: sections in the Appendices file can be navigated  by searching ">>".>> 2004 General Introduction 
________________________

In the fall of 2004 the National Election Studies (NES) carried out a time
series study both before and after the 2004 Presidential Election in the
United States.

The number of cases in this Full Release file, 1212, includes all
respondents from both the pre-election and post-election surveys. 
Respondents who completed a pre-election survey but not a post-election
survey are shown as missing in the post-election survey variables.

Accompanying the dataset is codebook documentation containing detailed
variable descriptions, as well as data descriptor statement files that can 
be used to read the raw data file into common data analysis software
packages such as SAS, SPSS, and STATA.



>> 2004 Study Description 
_________________________

The 2004 American National Election Study was conducted by the Center for
Political Studies at the Institute for Social Research, under the general
direction of the Principal Investigators, Nancy Burns and Donald R. Kinder.
Data collection services were provided by the Survey Research Center (SRC)
of the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research.

This is the latest in a series of studies of American national elections
produced by the University of Michigan's Center for Political Studies. The
study would not have been possible without the financial support of the
National Science Foundation and the University of Michigan (the Center for
Political Studies, the Department of Political Science, the Survey Research
Center, and the Office of the Provost).

The 2004 National Election Study was designed through consultation between
the Principal Investigators, a national Board of Overseers, a specially
appointed Planning Committee, and the NES user community.

Board members during the 2004 National Election Study included John H.
Aldrich (Duke University), Stephen Ansolabehere (Massachusetts Institute of
Technology), Nancy Burns, ex officio (University of Michigan), Russell
Dalton (University of California - Irvine), John Mark Hansen, chair
(University of Chicago), Simon Jackman (Stanford University), Donald Kinder,
ex officio (University of Michigan), Jon A. Krosnick (Ohio State
University), Arthur Lupia (University of Michigan), Diana C. Mutz
(University of Pennsylvania), and Wendy Rahn (University of Minnesota).

Planning Committee members for the 2004 National Election Study included
John H. Aldrich (Duke University), Stephen Ansolabehere (Massachusetts
Institute of Technology), David W. Brady (Stanford University), Nancy E.
Burns (University of Michigan), Raymond Duch (University of Houston), John
Mark Hansen (University of Chicago), Simon Jackman (Stanford University),
Jon A. Krosnick (Ohio State University), Donald R. Kinder (University of
Michigan), Arthur Lupia, chair (University of Michigan), Kathleen McGraw
(Ohio State University), Diana C. Mutz (University of Pennsylvania), Wendy
Rahn (University of Minnesota), Robert Y. Shapiro (Columbia University), and
Daron Shaw (University of Texas).

A stimulus letter was sent to members of the scholarly community and a
special website and message board system were set up in order to solicit 
input on study plans.

Additional information concerning the 2004 NES, including notification of
select errors discovered and made known to NES Staff after the data release
date, can be found on the NES Website (http://www.umich.edu/~nes). Any
questions not answered on the website or by this codebook can be directed to
the NES Staff by e-mail to "nes@umich.edu" or by regular postal service to
the address below.

National Election Studies (NES) Staff
Center for Political Studies
Institute for Social Research, 4100 Bay
University of Michigan
426 Thompson Street
Ann Arbor, MI 48104-2321
E-Mail: nes@umich.edu
Website: http://www.umich.edu/~nes



>> 2004 Study Design, Content and Administration
________________________________________________

>> 2004 STUDY DESIGN

The 2004 National Election Study entailed both a pre-election interview and
a post-election re-interview. A freshly drawn cross section of the
electorate was taken to yield 1,212 cases. The 70-minute pre-election survey
went into the field September 7th, approximately eight weeks before Election
Day. No interviewing was conducted on Election Day, November 2nd. The
65-minute post-election study went into the field the day after the
election, November 3rd, and remained in the field until December 20th.
Further details of the administration of the surveys are given in "2004
STUDY ADMINISTRATION," below.

>> 2004 STUDY CONTENT

Like its predecessors, the 2004 NES was divided between questions necessary
for tracking long-term trends and questions necessary to understand the
particular political moment of 2004.  The study maintains and extends the
NES time-series 'core' by collecting data on Americans' basic political
beliefs, allegiances, and behaviors: aspects of political belief and action
so basic to the understanding of politics that they must be monitored at
every election, no matter the nature of the specific campaign or the broader
setting.  Core consists of: (1) attachments to the parties; (2) evaluations
of incumbents and their challengers; (3) opinions on political issues; (4)
ideological identification and political values; (5) general attitudes
toward democratic procedure and the political system; (6) engagement and
participation in politics; (7) immersion in mass media; (8) identification
with and attitude toward social groups; and (9) social background.

The study also carried topical and study-specific instrumentation. Questions
covering issues prominent in 2004 addressed job outsourcing, private
investment of Social Security funds, and President Bush's tax cut.
Americans' views on foreign policy, the war on terrorism, and the Iraq War
and its consequences were also addressed.  In addition, the study carried
expanded instrumentation on inflation, immigration, gender politics, and gay
and lesbian politics.  It also extended the experiment on the measurement of
voter turnout that began in 2002.  A special feature was the incorporation
of the module on representation and accountability, Module 2, from the
Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES), at the end of the Post-
election interview.

Finally, a mergeable ancillary file of contextual data is an additional
component of the 2004 election study.  The file, available by the summer of
2005, contains 435 records representing all House districts.  It includes
biographical information, district and state descriptive variables, and
other data related to the 2004 election and its candidates. 

>> 2004 STUDY ADMINISTRATION

The pre-election survey began on September 7th, 2004 and ended November 1st,
2004. No interviewing was conducted on Election Day, November 2nd. The
post-election reinterviews began on November 3rd, 2004 and ended
December 20th, 2004.

Data collection was conducted by the Survey Research Center (SRC) of the
University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research. All interviewing was
conducted face-to-face using Computer-Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI)
technology. The CAPI instrument was programmed using Blaise, a software
package developed by Statistics Netherland. All interviews were conducted
in English, as there were no translations of the questionnaire to a language
other than English.

The pre-election study sample was released all at once at the beginning of
the field period. All individuals who completed a pre-election interview
were contacted to be interviewed again in the post-election study. The
post-election design was managed as a "quick take," with as many completions
gained as close to Election Day as possible.

For interview proper (defined as the portion of the interview after the
front end, but prior to the interviewer observations), the pre-election
study ran approximately 70 minutes per interview, and the post-election
study approximately 65 minutes per interview. Both studies made use of
respondent booklets, and the post-election study also made use of ballot
cards.  Randomization was used extensively throughout both the pre-election
and post-election questionnaires, for purposes of randomizing order within
batteries or question series, application of half-sampling to some
questions, and random ordering of question blocks.

The sample for the 2004 study was comprised of 2,374 cases, a freshly drawn
cross section intended to be nationally representative of the electorate.
All respondents were United States citizens aged 18 years or older by
election Day (November 2nd, 2004).

Users are advised to become familiar with the weight variables provided in
the dataset, and apply them as appropriate to their analyses to correct for
non-response and other sampling issues.

Final disposition codes for each case were provided by the data collection
organization, coded to categories identified in the American Association for
Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) Standards and Best Practices guide. The
citation for the AAPOR document is:

        The American Association for Public Opinion Research. 2000.
        Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome
        Rates for Surveys.  Ann Arbor, Michigan: AAPOR.

Cases were divided into eligible and non-eligible categories, where unknown
eligibility was grouped with eligible cases.  All interviews were fully
completed, with no partial interviews accepted.  Eligible (or unknown
eligibility) cases that did not provide an interview were categorized as
non-response.  The sample of 2,374 cases yielded 1,833 cases that were
considered eligible.  Of special note among these are cases representing
households with no person available who spoke English, and for which no
multi-lingual interviewer was available to determine eligibility.  Such
cases were categorized as eligible non-response, since eligibility was
uncertain. Regardless, an interview could not have been conducted for these
cases because the 2004 questionnaire was only available in English. The
sample yielded 1,212 pre-election interviews and 622 non-response cases (429
of which were refusals). 1,066 pre-election respondents went on to also
provide a post-election interview (146 non-response in the Post, including
91 refusals).

2004 Election Study Response Rates

                 Interviews  Eligible    Response Rate
------------------------------------------------------
Pre-Election          1212      1833             66.1%
Post-Election         1066      1212             88.0% 

The Pre-Election response rate of 66.1% is calculated as the total number of
Pre-Election interviews over the total number of eligible (and unknown
eligibility) cases in the sample.  The Post-Election response rate of 88.0%
is a re-interview rate, calculated as the total number of Post-Election
Interviews over the total number of Pre-Election Interviews. (Note: these
response rates are unweighted. Double samples and other such techniques were
not employed in the 2004 study.)

The field and study staff implemented a number of strategies throughout
the study to bolster response rates.

1) In the pre-election study:

Households were sent advance mailings by first class mail in a stamped 9.5
by 13.5 inch padded manila envelope, with a hand-signed letter, a brochure,
a $5 bill, and a University of Michigan refrigerator magnet enclosed. A
respondent incentive of $20 per interview was initially offered to all
cases. Households were contacted and screened face-to-face.

Cases that showed resistance to interview were usually mailed a letter
tailored to their reason for resistance.  A refusal conversion attempt was
then made.

Near the end of the pre-election study, on October 20th, a two-day UPS
mailing containing a hand-signed letter was sent to all outstanding sample
lines that did not have a hard appointment set; the letter offered an
increased incentive of $50 per interview.

2) In the post-election study:

Respondents received an advance hand-signed letter by first class mail in
a stamped 9.5 by 13.5 inch padded manila envelope. As an incentive for their
post-election interview, respondents were offered the same dollar amount as
they received in the pre-election study, and respondents were paid by the
interviewer at the time of the interview.  During the first two weeks of the
post-election study, interviewers were allowed to contact households by
telephone in order to set up an appointment to interview at a convenient
time, although all interviewing was conducted face-to-face.

As in the pre-election study, cases that showed resistance to interview were
usually mailed a letter tailored to their reason for resistance. A refusal
conversion attempt was then made.

3) Interviewer incentives:

Throughout both the pre-election and post-election study a number of
interviewer and team leader incentive strategies were implemented, including
monetary incentives for meeting management goals at different junctures
during the study period.


>> 2004 Special note about Texas House Incumbents
_________________________________________________

Names of candidates were preloaded into the post-election survey instrument
following identification of the respondent's Congressional district. 
(District identification was supplied by Marketing Systems group in
combination with staff research.)

In general, candidates are identified as House incumbents in this file to
establish the context of pre-existing association with the respondent.
Incumbents are thus regarded as candidates that are (already) in office in
representation of a district at the time of the 2004 election, where
district is regarded as a geographic location rather than a political unit.  
The extent of Texas redistricting from 108th to 109th Congressional district
boundaries consistently produced 2004 House races with incumbent candidates
running to represent areas where he or she had provided little or no
previous representation.  Consequently, no Texas candidate has been
identified as a (true)incumbent for any 109th Congressional district, as
neither the running nor retiring incumbent for the district.  All Texas
Congressional races have been considered open races, all Texas candidates
have been given candidate codes corresponding to nonincumbent candidates,
and retiring Texas House incumbents were not associated with any new
district as the retiree.


>> 2004 National Election Study Sample Design
_____________________________________________

>> STUDY POPULATION

The study population for the 2004 National Election Study (NES) is defined
to include all United States citizens of voting age on or before the 2004
Election Day.  Eligible citizens must have resided in housing units in the
forty-eight coterminous states.  This definition excludes persons living in
Alaska or Hawaii and requires eligible persons to have been both a United
States citizen and eighteen years of age on or before the 2nd of November
2004.

>> MULTI-STAGE AREA PROBABILITY DESIGN

The area sample is based on a multi-stage area probability sample selected
from the Survey Research Center's (SRC) 1990 National Sample design. 
Identification of the 2004 NES sample respondents was conducted using a four
stage sampling process: a primary stage sampling of U.S. Metropolitan
Statistical Areas (MSAs) or New England County Metropolitan Areas (NECMAs)
and non-MSA counties, followed by a second stage sampling of area segments,
a third stage sampling of housing units within sampled area segments and
concluding with the random selection of a single respondent from selected
housing units.  A detailed documentation of the 1990 SRC National Sample,
from which the 2004 NES sample was drawn, is provided in the SRC
publication titled 1990 SRC National Sample: Design and Development.  

The 2004 NES sample design called for an entirely new cross-section sample
to be drawn from the 1990 SRC National Sample.    The 1990 SRC National
Sample is a multi-stage area probability sample.  The 2004 NES sample was
drawn from both the 1990 SRC National Sample strata (MSA PSUs) and the 1980
SRC National Sample strata  (non-MSA PSUs).  The modification of the 1990
design in which the 1980 strata definitions were used for the non-MSA
counties fully represents the non-MSA domain of the 48 contiguous states. 
This modification was made for cost and interviewing efficiency reasons
related to the availability of interviewers in these areas who work on some
of SRC's large panel studies.  The following sections will focus on the 1990
SRC National Sample design.
         
Selection Stages for the 2004 NES Sample: 1990 SRC National Sample

- Primary Stage Selection

The selection of primary stage sampling units (PSUs) for the 1990 SRC
National Sample, which depending on the sample stratum are either MSAs, New
England County Metropolitan Areas (NECMAs), single counties, independent
cities, county equivalents or groupings of small counties, is based on the
county level 1990 Census Reports of Population and Housing[1].  Primary
stage units were assigned to 108 explicit strata based on MSA/NECMA or
nonMSA/NECMA status, PSU size, Census Region and geographic location within
region.  Twenty-eight of the 108 strata contain only a single
selfrepresenting PSU, each of which is included with certainty in the
primary stage of sample selection.  The remaining 80 non-selfrepresenting
strata contain more than one PSU.  From each of these nonselfrepresenting
strata, one PSU was sampled with probability proportionate to its size (PPS)
measured in 1990 occupied housing units. 

The full 1990 SRC National Sample of 108 primary stage selections was
designed to be optimal for surveys roughly three to five times the size of
the 2004 NES.  To permit the flexibility needed for optimal design of
smaller survey samples, the primary stage of the SRC National Sample can be
readily partitioned into smaller subsamples of PSUs such as a one-half
sample or a three-quarter sample partition.  Each of the partitions
represents a stratified sub-selection from the full 108 PSU design.  The
2004 NES sample of 44 PSUs is a stratified random subsample of PSUs from the
"A" half-sample partition of the 1990 SRC National Sample.  Because of the
small size of this NES sample, both the number of PSUs (selected primary
areas) and the secondary stage units (area segments) in the National
half-sample were reduced by sub-selection for the 2004 NES sample design. 
The 18 self-representing areas in the 1990 SRC National half-sample were all
retained for the 2004 NES sample (8 of these remained self-representing in
the 2004 NES and 10 represent not only their own MSA but their "pair" among
the twenty additional self-representing primary areas of the full 1990 SRC
National Sample design).  Nineteen of the 26 nonself-representing
half-sample MSAs and 7 of the 14 half-sample non-MSAs were retained by the
sub-selection for the 2004 NES sample (or 26 of 40 NSR PSUs).  

- Second Stage Selection of Area Segments

The second stage of the 1990 SRC National Sample, used for the 2004 NES
sample, was selected directly from computerized files that were extracted
for the selected PSUs from the 1990 U.S. Census summary file series STF1-B. 
These files (on CD Rom) contain the 1990 Census total population and housing
unit (HU) data at the census block level.  The designated second stage
sampling units (SSUs), termed "area segments", are comprised of census
blocks in both the metropolitan (MSA) primary areas and in the rural areas
of non-MSA primary areas.  Each SSU block or block combination was assigned
a measure of size equal to the total 1990 occupied housing unit count for
the area.  SSU block(s) were assigned a minimum measure of 72 total HUs per
MSA SSU and a minimum measure of 48 total HUs per non-MSA SSU.   Second
stage sampling of area segments was performed with probabilities
proportionate to the assigned measures of size (PPS).  
         
For the 2004 NES sample the number of area segments used in each PSU varies. 
In the self-representing (SR) PSUs the number of area segments varies in
proportion to the size of the primary stage unit, from a high of 12 area
segments to a low of 6 area segments.

For the 2004 NES sample the number of area segments used in each PSU varies. 
In the self-representing (SR) PSUs the number of area segments varies in
proportion to the size of the primary stage unit, from a high of 12 area
segments to a low of 6 area segments in smaller self-representing PSUs [2].

- Third Stage Selection of Housing Units: 2004 NES Sample

For each area segment selected in the second sampling stage, a listing had
been made of all housing units located within the physical boundaries of the
segment.  For segments with a very large number of expected housing units,
all housing units in a sub-selected part of the segment were listed.  The
final equal probability sample of housing units for the 2004 NES sample was
systematically selected from the housing unit listings for the sampled area
segments.  

The 2004 NES sample design was selected from the 1990 SRC National Sample to
yield an equal probability sample of 2,756 listed housing units.  This total
included 2,366 housing units for the main sample and three reserve
replicates of 130 cases each.  Table A below shows the assumptions that were
used to determine the number of sample housing units.  The overall
probability of selection for 2004 NES cross-section sample of households was
f=0.00002575 or 0.2575 in 10,000.  The equal probability sample of
households was achieved for the 2004 NES sample by using the standard
multistage sampling technique of setting the sampling rate for selecting
housing units within area segments to be inversely proportional to the PPS
probabilities used to select the PSU and area segment (Kish, 1965).

- Fourth Stage Respondent Selection: 2004 NES Sample
  
Within each sampled 2004 NES occupied housing unit, the SRC interviewer
prepared a complete listing of all eligible household members.  A single
respondent was then selected at random to be interviewed. Regardless of
circumstances, no substitutions were permitted for the designated
respondent.  

>> SAMPLE DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS, SPECIFICATIONS AND OUTCOMES

The 2004 National Election Study sought a total of 1200 in-person
interviews.  It was estimated that this would require a NES sample draw of
2,366 housing units.  This assumed an occupancy/growth rate of 0.83, an
eligibility rate of 0.94 and a response rate of 0.65.  These assumptions
were based on the 2000 NES field experience.  The overall 2004 NES area
sample design specifications, assumptions and outcomes appear in Table A,
below.  A sample of 2,756 listed housing units was actually selected for the
2004 NES study. This allowed for three reserve replicates of 130 cases each. 
Use of half-open intervals in the field led to the addition of 8 additional
lines. These were housing units that were not identified during the listing
stage, but were located between the selected housing unit and the next unit
on the original listing. The use of this procedure insures full coverage of
housing units.
         
A comparison of the 2004 NES sample outcome figures to the design
specifications and assumptions in table A below shows that the actual
occupancy, eligibility, and response rates were very close to the expected
rates.          

                              Table A.
     2004 NES Area Sample Pre and Post-Election Design Specifications 
           and Assumptions Compared to Sample Outcome.

                            2004 NES    2004 NES       2004 NES     2004 NES
                          Pre Design  Pre Sample    Post Design  Post Sample
                       Specification     Outcome  Specification      Outcome 
                       -------------  ----------  -------------  -----------

TOTAL SAMPLE LINES           2366          2374
Completed Interviews         1200          1212         1020          1066
Eligible Sample HHs          1946          1825         1200          1212
Occupied Households          1964          1886
Response Rate                 .65           .66          .85           .88
Eligibility Rate              .94           .97
Occupancy/growth rate         .83           .79


>> POST-ELECTION SAMPLE OUTCOMES

Of the 1,212 respondents interviewed in the Pre-Election Study, 1,066
completed Post-Election interviews for an overall response rate of 0.88.  

>> WEIGHTED ANALYSIS OF THE 2004 NES DATA

The 2004 NES data set includes a person-level analysis weight, which
incorporates sampling, nonresponse and post-stratification factors. Analysts
interested in developing their own nonresponse or stratification adjustment
factors must request access to the necessary sample control data from the
NES Board.

>> CONSTRUCTION OF ANALYSIS WEIGHTS

Household Selection Weight Component

Each household selected for the 2004 NES had an equal probability of
selection. The inverse of this probability results in an inflation factor of
38,832.4 for each household in the sample.

Person-Level Sample Selection Weight Component

Within sample households a single adult respondent is chosen at random to be
interviewed.  Since the number of eligible adults varies from one household
to another, the random selection of a single adult introduces inequality
into respondents' selection probabilities.  In analysis, a respondent
selection weight should be used to compensate for these unequal selection
probabilities.  The person-level selection weight is the product of the
household selection weight and the within household selection weight.  The
within household selection weight is equal to the number of eligible persons
in the household and is capped at 3. The use of the respondent selection
weight is strongly encouraged, despite past evaluations that have shown
these weights to have little significant impact on the values of NES
estimates of descriptive statistics. 

Nonresponse Adjusted Selection Weight

The base weight equals the product of the selection weight and the household
level nonresponse adjustment factors. Nonresponse adjustment cells for the
2004 NES sample were formed by crossing MSA status by the four Census
regions.  A nonresponse adjustment factor equal to the inverse of the
response rate in each cell was applied to the interview cases.  Table B
below shows the response rates and nonresponse adjustment factors for the
2004 NES.

                               Table B.
              Computation of Nonresponse Adjustment Weights 
                       2004 NES Area Sample.

     PSU TYPE     CENSUS REGION     RESPONSE RATE     NONRESP.
                                                    ADJUSTMENT FACTOR

     MSAs         Northeast            56.18           1.78
                  Midwest              69.96           1.43
                  South                65.86           1.52
                  West                 68.50           1.46

     Non-MSAs     Northeast            66.44           1.51
                  Midwest              77.08           1.30
                  South                68.57           1.46
                  West                 65.64           1.52


Post-stratification factor

The 2004 NES weights are post-stratified to 2004 CPS March Supplement
proportions for six (6) ages by four (4) education categories.    Table C
shows the weighted estimates and proportions for the 24 cells for the 2004
CPS and the 2004 NES.  The post-stratification adjustment is computed by
dividing the CPS weighted total by the 2004 NES total weighted by the
nonresponse adjusted selection weight.  The final two columns show the NES
weighted totals using the final post-stratified analysis weight and the
resulting percents, which match the CPS percents.

Final Analysis Weights

The final analysis weight is the product of the household level non-response
adjustment factor, the number of eligible persons, and a person-level
post-stratification factor.  The final analysis weight for the 2004 NES
sample is scaled to sum to 1212, the total number of respondents.  This
weight is trimmed at the 1st and 99th percentiles and then re-scaled to
match the 2004 CPS proportions for the 24 age-by-education cells.
         
Post-Election Attrition Weight

The 1,066 Post-Election cases were post-stratified to 2004 CPS March
Supplement proportions for six (6) ages by four (4) education categories
(the same categories used for post-stratifying the Pre-Election cases).  The
post-stratification compensates for differential non-response by age group
and education level.  Response rates for the Post-Election Study ranged from
a high of 100 percent for persons 70 or older with some college to a low of
58 percent for persons age 30 � 39 who did not graduate from high school. 
The panel attrition weight for the Post-Election Study is the product of the
Pre-Election final weight and the post-stratification factor formed by
dividing the CPS proportion by the weighted NES proportion for each of the
24 age by education cells.  The weight is scaled to sum to the number of
cases, 1,066. 

                                 Table C.
           2004 NES Sample Weight:  Post-stratification Factors    

                                                 PRELIM           NES  FINAL
                               2004 CPS  2004  2004 NES  POST-    WTD    NES
AGE    EDUCATION                Est. in   CPS  WTD. EST  STRAT      N   WTD.
GROUP  LEVEL                N   000s[3]     %   IN 000s   ADJ.   CTRD      %

18-29  < High School Grad  17   6246.8  3.183   2107.7   2.964  38.58  3.183
       High School Grad    74  12310.9  6.274  10089.9   1.220  76.04  6.274 
       Some College        97  15337.3  7.816  12556.4   1.221  94.73  7.816
       College Grad        53   6950.8  3.542   6275.0   1.108  42.93  3.542
30-39  < High School Grad  12   2844.8  1.450   1432.3   1.986  17.57  1.450
       High School Grad    45  10866.0  5.537   5309.0   2.047  67.11  5.537 
       Some College        72  10391.4  5.296   8536.8   1.217  64.18  5.296
       College Grad        69  11277.4  5.747   8168.7   1.381  69.95  5.747
40-49  < High School Grad  15   3654.2  1.862   1751.5   2.086  22.57  1.862
       High School Grad    66  13453.9  6.856   7767.5   1.732  83.10  6.856 
       Some College        80  11737.5  5.982   9572.5   1.226  72.50  5.982
       College Grad        78  12124.4  6.179   8616.0   1.407  74.89  6.179
50-69  < High School Grad  12   3183.4  1.622   1634.8   1.947  19.66  1.622
       High School Grad    67  10523.7  5.363   8438.9   1.247  65.00  5.363 
       Some College        70   9437.2  4.809   9110.4   1.036  58.29  4.809
       College Grad        82  10571.3  5.387   9854.1   1.073  65.29  5.387
60-69  < High School Grad  21   3589.4  1.829   1972.7   1.820  22.17  1.829
       High School Grad    63   7807.9  3.979   7258.0   1.076  48.23  3.979 
       Some College        36   4727.6  2.409   4367.0   1.083  29.20  2.409
       College Grad        52   5009.8  2.553   6766.7   0.740  30.94  2.553
70+    < High School Grad  22   6801.0  3.466   1975.7   3.442  42.01  3.466
       High School Grad    52   8761.4  4.465   5598.5   1.565  54.11  4.465 
       Some College        29   4309.9  2.196   3072.6   1.403  26.62  2.197
       College Grad        28   4311.5  2.197   3243.8   1.329  26.63  2.192
       ----------------- ---- --------  ----- --------  ------  -----  -----
       TOTALS            1212 196229.7   100%  145476.6   100%   1212   100%


>> PROCEDURES FOR SAMPLING ERROR ESTIMATION

The 2004 NES sample design is based on a stratified multi-stage area
probability sample of United States households.  Although smaller in scale,
the NES sample design is very similar in its basic structure to the
multi-stage designs used for major federal survey programs such as the
Health Interview Survey (HIS) or the Current Population Survey (CPS).  The
survey literature refers to the NES, HIS and CPS samples as complex designs,
a loosely-used term meant to denote the fact that the sample incorporates
special design features such as stratification, clustering and differential
selection probabilities (i.e., weighting) that analysts must consider in
computing sampling errors for sample estimates of descriptive statistics and
model parameters.  This section of the 2004 NES sample design description
focuses on sampling error estimation and construction of confidence
intervals for survey estimates of descriptive statistics such as means,
proportions, ratios, and coefficients for linear and logistic linear
regression models.  

Standard analysis procedures in software systems such as SAS and SPSS assume
simple random sampling (SRS) or equivalently independence of observations in
computing standard errors for sample estimates.  In general, the SRS
assumption results in underestimation of variances of survey estimates of
descriptive statistics and model parameters.  Confidence intervals based on
computed variances that assume independence of observations will be biased
(generally too narrow) and design-based inferences will be affected
accordingly.  

Sampling Error Computation Methods and Programs

Over the past 50 years, advances in survey sampling theory have guided the
development of a number of methods for correctly estimating variances from
complex sample data sets. A number of sampling error programs which
implement these complex sample variance estimation methods are available to
NES data analysts.   The two most common approaches to the estimation of
sampling error for complex sample data are through the use of a Taylor
Series Linearization of the estimator (and corresponding approximation to
its variance) or through the use of resampling variance estimation
procedures such as Balanced Repeated Replication (BRR) or Jackknife Repeated
Replication (JRR).  New Bootstrap methods for variance estimation can also
be included among the resampling approaches.  See Rao and Wu (1988).

1.  Taylor series linearization method:

When survey data are collected using a complex sample design with unequal
size clusters, most statistics of interest will not be simple linear
functions of the observed data.  The linearization approach applies Taylor's
method to derive an approximate form of the estimator that is linear in
statistics for which variances and covariances can be directly and easily
estimated (Woodruff, 1971).  SUDAAN and Stata are two commercially available
statistical software packages that include procedures that apply the Taylor
series method to estimation and inference for complex sample data. SAS has
also recently added procedures that make use of the Taylor series
linearization method.

SUDAAN  (Research Triangle Institute, 2001) is a commercially available
software system developed and marketed by the Research Triangle Institute of
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (USA).  SUDAAN was developed as a
stand-alone software system with capabilities for the more important methods
for descriptive and multivariate analysis of survey data, including:
estimation and inference for means, proportions and rates (PROC DESCRIPT and
PROC RATIO); contingency table analysis (PROC CROSSTAB); linear regression
(PROC REGRESS); logistic regression (PROC LOGISTIC); log-linear models (PROC
LOGLINK); and survival analysis (PROC SURVIVAL).  The latest versions of
SUDAAN permit procedures to be called directly from the SAS system. 
Information on SUDAAN is available at the following web site address:
http://www.rti.org.

Stata  (StataCorp, 2003) is another commercially available software system
for analysis of complex sample survey data and has a growing body of
research users.  Stata includes special versions of its standard analysis
routines that are designed for the analysis of complex sample survey data. 
Special survey analysis programs are available for descriptive estimation of
means (SVYMEAN), ratios (SVYRATIO), proportions (SVYPROP) and population
totals (SVYTOTAL).  Stata programs for multivariate analysis of survey data
currently include linear regression (SVYREGRESS), logistic regression
(SVYLOGIT) and probit regression (SVYPROBT).  Information on the Stata
analysis software system can be found on the Web at: http://www.stata.com.
         
SAS versions 8 and higher have added several procedures for the analysis of
survey data. Programs for the estimation of means (PROC SURVEYMEANS) and
linear regression models (PROC SURVEYREG) have been included in the STAT
module. Other procedures planned for version 9 include procedures for
estimating totals and proportions (PROC SURVEYFREQ) and for logistic
regression models (PROC SURVEYLOGISTIC).     

2.  Resampling methods:

BRR, JRR and the bootstrap comprise a second class of nonparametric methods
for conducting estimation and inference from complex sample data.  As
suggested by the generic label for this class of methods, BRR, JRR and the
bootstrap utilize replicated subsampling of the sample database to develop
sampling variance estimates for linear and nonlinear statistics.  WesVar 
(Brick et al., 2002) is a commercially available software system for
personal computers that employs replicated variance estimation methods to
conduct the more common types of statistical analysis of complex sample
survey data.  WesVar  was developed by Westat, Inc. Information about WesVar
is available from Westat's Web site: http://www.westat.com/.  WesVar
includes a Windows-based application generator that enables the analyst to
select the form of data input (SAS data file, SPSS for Windows data base,
dBase file, ASCII data set) and the computation method (BRR or JRR methods). 
Analysis programs contained in WesVar provide the capability for basic
descriptive (means, proportions, totals, cross tabulations) and regression
(linear, logistic) analysis of complex sample survey data.  

These new and updated software packages include an expanded set of user
friendly, well-documented analysis procedures.  Difficulties with sample
design specification, data preparation, and data input in the earlier
generations of survey analysis software created a barrier to use by analysts
who were not survey design specialists.  The new software enables the user
to input data and output results in a variety of common formats, and the
latest versions accommodate direct input of data files from the major
analysis software systems.   Readers who are interested in a more detailed
comparison of these and other survey analysis software alternatives are
referred to Cohen (1997).

Sampling Error Computation Models

Regardless of whether linearization or a resampling approach is used,
estimation of variances for complex sample survey estimates requires the
specification of a sampling error computation model.  NES data analysts who
are interested in performing sampling error computations should be aware
that the estimation programs identified in the preceding section assume a
specific sampling error computation model and will require special sampling
error codes.  Individual records in the analysis data set must be assigned
sampling error codes that identify to the programs the complex structure of
the sample (stratification, clustering) and are compatible with the
computation algorithms of the various programs.  To facilitate the
computation of sampling error for statistics based on 2004 NES data,
design-specific sampling error codes will be routinely included in all
public-use versions of the data set.  Although minor recoding may be
required to conform to the input requirements of the individual programs,
the sampling error codes that are provided should enable analysts to conduct
either Taylor Series or Replicated estimation of sampling errors for survey
statistics.

Two sampling error code variables are defined for each case based on the
sample design primary stage unit (PSU) and area segment in which the sample
household is located.

Sampling Error Stratum Code 

The Sampling Error Computation Stratum Code (digit 1 of V040103) is the
variable that defines the sampling error computation strata for all sampling
error analysis of the NES data.  Each self-representing (SR) design stratum
is represented by one sampling error computation stratum.   Pairs of similar
nonself-representing (NSR) primary stage design strata are "collapsed"
(Kalton, 1977) to create NSR sampling error computation strata.  Since there
was an uneven number of nonself-representing MSA and non-MSA strata used in
the 2004 NES, and since it was felt that a nonself-representing MSA PSU
should be paired with a non-MSA PSU, one of each of these PSUs stands alone
within its Sampling Error Stratum Code.

For the 1990 SRC National Sample design, controlled selection and a
"one-per-stratum" PSU allocation are used to select the primary stage of the
2004 NES national sample.  The purpose in using controlled selection and the
"one-per-stratum" sample allocation is to reduce the between-PSU component
of sampling variation relative to a "two-per-stratum" primary stage design.
Despite the expected improvement in sample precision, a drawback of the
"one-per-stratum" design is that two or more sample selection strata must be
collapsed or combined to form a sampling error computation stratum. 
Variances are then estimated under the assumption that a multiple PSU per
stratum design was actually used for primary stage selection.  The expected
consequence of collapsing design strata into sampling error computation
strata is the overestimation of the true sampling error; that is, the
sampling error computation model will yield estimates of sampling errors
which in expectation will be slightly greater than the true sampling error
of the statistic of interest.  
         
SECU - Stratum-specific Sampling Error Computation Unit code (last 2 digits
of V040103) is a half sample code for analysis of sampling error using the
BRR method or approximate "two-per-stratum" Taylor Series method (Kish and
Hess, 1959).  Within the SR sampling error strata, the SECU half sample
units are created by dividing sample cases into random halves, SECU=1 and
SECU=2. The assignment of cases to half-samples is designed to preserve the
stratification and second stage clustering properties of the sample within
an SR stratum. Sample cases are assigned to SECU half samples based on the
area segment in which they were selected.  For this assignment, sample cases
were placed in original stratification order (area segment number order) and
beginning with a random start entire area segment clusters were
systematically assigned to either SECU=1 or SECU=2.

In the general case of nonself-representing (NSR) strata, the half sample
units are defined according to the PSU to which the respondent was assigned
at sample selection (with the exception of the two unpaired NSR strata
mentioned above).  That is, the half samples for each NSR sampling error
computation stratum bear a one-to-one correspondence to the sample design
NSR PSUs.  The particular sample coding provided on the NES public use data
set is consistent with the "ultimate cluster" approach to complex sample
variance estimation (Kish, 1965; Kalton, 1977).  Individual stratum, PSU and
segment code variables may be needed by NES analysts interested in
components of variance analysis or estimation of hierarchical models in
which PSU-level and neighborhood-level effects are explicitly estimated.


References

Alegria, M., Kessler, R., Bijl, R., Lin, E., Heeringa, S.G., Takeuchi, D.T., 
     Kolody, B. (2000).  To appear in The Unmet Need for Treatment. 
     Proceedings of a Symposium of the World Psychiatric Association,
     Sydney, Australia, October, 1997.

Binder, D.A. (1983), "On the variances of asymptotically normal estimators
     from complex surveys," International Statistical Review, Vol. 51, pp.
     279-292. 

Brick, J.M., et.al. (2002).  "WesVar 4.2 User's Guide." Rockville, MD: 
     Westat, Inc.

Cochran, W.G. (1977).  Sampling Techniques.  New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Cohen, S.B. (1997).  "An evaluation of alternative PC-based software 
     packages developed for the analysis of complex survey data," The
     American Statistician, Vol. 51, No. 3, pp. 285-292.

Goldstein, H. (1987).  Multi-level Models in Educational and Social
     Research.  London: Oxford University Press.

Kalton, G. (1977), "Practical methods for estimating survey sampling
     errors," Bulletin of the International Statistical Institute, Vol. 47,
     3, pp. 495-514.

Kish, L. (1949).  "A procedure for objective respondent selection within the
     household," Journal of the American     Statistical Association, Vol.
44,
     pp. 380-387.

Kish, L. (1965), Survey Sampling.  New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 

Kish, L., & Frankel, M.R. (1974), "Inference from complex samples," Journal
      of the Royal Statistical Society, B, Vol. 36, pp. 1-37.

Kish, L., Groves, R.M., & Krotki, K.P. (1975).  "Sampling errors for
      fertility surveys." Occasional Paper No. 17.  Voorburg, Netherlands:
      World Fertility Survey, International Statistical Institute.

Kish, L., & Hess, I. (1959), "On variances of ratios and their differences
      in multi-stage samples," Journal of the American Statistical
      Association, 54, pp. 416-446.

LePage, R., & Billard, L. (1992), Exploring the Limits of Bootstrap. New
      York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Mahalanobis, P.C. (1946), "Recent experiments in statistical sampling at the
      Indian Statistical Institute," Journal of the Royal Statistical
      Society, Vol. 109, pp. 325-378.

McCullagh, P.M. & Nelder, J.A. (1989). Generalized Linear Models, 2nd
      Edition. Chapman and Hall.  London.

Rao, J.N.K & Wu, C.F.J. (1988.), "Resampling inference with complex sample
      data," Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83, pp.
      231-239.

Rosenstone, Steven J., Kinder, Donald R., Miller, Warren E., & the National
      Election Studies Sample Design: Technical Memoranda, 1994 Election
      Study pp. 882-905 in Rosenstone, Steven J., Kinder, Donald R., Miller,
      Warren E., & the National Election Studies, AMERICAN NATIONAL ELECTION
      STUDY, 1994:  ELECTION SURVEY (ENHANCED WITH 1992 AND 1993 DATA)
      (Computer file).  Conducted by University of Michigan Center for
      Political Studies.  2nd ICPSR ed.  Ann Arbor MI: University of
      Michigan, Center for Political Studies, and Inter-university
      Consortium for Political and Social Research (producer), 1995.  Ann
      Arbor MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social
      Research (distributor), 1995.

Research Triangle Institute (2001). SUDAAN User's Manual, Release 8.0. 
      Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute.

Rust, K. (1985).  "Variance estimation for complex estimators in sample
      surveys," Journal of Official Statistics, Vol. 1, No. 4.


SAS Institute, Inc. (2004).  SAS/STAT User's Guide, Version 9.1, Vol. 1-9.
     Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc.

Skinner, C.J., Holt, D., & Smith, T.M.F. (1989).  Analysis of Complex
     Surveys.  New York: John Wiley & Sons.

SPSS, Inc. (2003).  SPSS 12.0 Base User's Guide.  Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.

StataCorp. (2003).  Stata Statistical Software: Release 8.0.  College
     Station, TX: Stata Corporation.

Wolter, K.M.  (1985).  Introduction to Variance Estimation. New York:
     Springer-Verlag.

Woodruff, R.S. (1971), "A simple method for approximating the variance of a
     complicated estimate," Journal of the American Statistical Association,
     Vol. 66, pp. 411-414.

Yamageuchi, K. (1991).  Event History Analysis. Applied Social Research
     Methods Series, Vol.�28.  Newbury Park, CA/London: Sage Publications.

............

Footnotes

[1] Office of Management and Budget (OMB) June 1990 definitions of MSAs,
    NECMAs, counties, parishes, independent cities.  These, of course,
    differ in some respects from the primary stage unit (PSU) definitions
    used in the 1980 SRC National Sample so will not be strictly comparable
    to the 1996 NES Panel PSUs--particularly in New England where MSAs were
    used as PSUs in the 1980 National Sample and NECMAs were used as PSUs in
    the 1990 National Sample.
[2] One selected segment was in a former trailer park that had no
    housing units to be listed in January 1996.  All had been destroyed in
    1992 by hurricane Andrew and there were no plans to rebuild.
[3] Because U.S. citizenship is required for NES eligibility, the CPS counts
    used for stratification include only U.S. citizens.  



>> 2004 Note on Confidential Materials
______________________________________

Starting with the 1986 Election Study, NES has released occupation code
variables in less detail than preceding years.  The full release of
this dataset includes a two-digit code with 25 categories corresponding
to 2000 Census Bureau occupational groupings.  Those who need the full
occupation code for their research should contact the NES project staff for
information about the conditions under which access may be provided.  

The National Election Studies have also not included information for
census tracts or minor civil divisions since 1978, and since 2000 county
and PSU identification have no longer been made available. Permission to use 
detailed geographic information for scholarly research may be obtained from
the Board of Overseers.  More information about this is available from NES 
project staff. 

Note that coding of the full religious denomination variable is in some
cases based on alphabetic "other, please specify" variables, which are
restricted for reasons of confidentiality, although access may be provided
to legitimate scholars under established NES procedures. 

Finally, the National Election Studies have traditionally contained several
minutes of open-ended responses (for example, the candidate likes and
dislikes).  These questions are coded by the SRC coding section according to
master code schemes.  Other scholars have developed alternative or
supplemental coding schemes for such questions (for example, the levels of
conceptualization, released as ICPSR 8151).  The Board of Overseers wishes
to encourage these efforts but in ways which respect the NES and SRC
obligation to protect the privacy and anonymity of respondents. 
Circumstances under which individuals may have access to transcribed
versions of these questions have been worked out and those interested should
contact the NES project staff for further details.


>> 2004 File Structure and Processing Information
_________________________________________________

The data file for the 2004 American National Election Study is constructed
with a single logical record for each respondent. Records are in comma-
delimited ASCII format with variable names comprising the first data line. 

The data collection was processed according to standard processing
procedures.  The data were checked for inconsistent code values which, when
found, were corrected or recoded to missing data values. Consistency checks
were performed.  Annotation was added by the processors for explanatory
purposes.





>> 2004 CODEBOOK INFORMATION (how to read)
__________________________________________


              EXAMPLE OF CODEBOOK VARIABLE DOCUMENTATION

01  ========================================================================
02  V035246     Q9a. Party of Pres vote -party performance past 4 yrs
03  ========================================================================
04
05  IF R VOTED:
06  IF R VOTED FOR PRESIDENT:
07  IF PRESIDENTIAL VOTE WAS FOR MAJOR PARTY CANDIDATE/
08  IF PRESIDENTIAL VOTE WAS FOR OTHER PARTY CANDIDATE:
09
10  QUESTION:
11  ---------
12  You've indicated that you voted for the [>NAME OF MAJOR PARTY<
13  Presidential candidate/Presidential candidate from the >NAME
14  OF OTHER PARTY< party] in 2004.
15  How well has [the >NAME OF MAJOR PARTY< party/ that party] performed 
16  over the past four years? Has it done a VERY GOOD job? a GOOD job? 
17  A BAD job? A VERY BAD job? (in general)
18
19  INTERVIEWER INSTRUCTION:
20  ------------------------
21  {INTERVIEWER: DO NOT PROBE DON'T KNOW}
22
23  VALID CODES:
24  ------------
25  1. Very good job
26  2. Good job
27  3. Bad job
28  4. Very bad job
29
30  MISSING CODES:
31  --------------
32  8. Don't know
33  9. Refused
34  INAP. 5,8,9 in C1a or 1-3,8,9 in C1b; 5,8,9 in C6; 7,8,9 in
35  Q9x; no post IW
36
37  NOTES:
38  ------
39  Text corresponding to C6a party of vote for President was
40  included in the question text.
41
42  TYPE:
43  -----
44  Numeric  Dec 0
45

..........................................................................
NOTE: THIS EXAMPLE DOES NOT REPRESENT AN ACTUAL NES VARIABLE

LINE 02
Contains identifiers, including (left to right) the variable name, the
question "tag" or item number (Q9a), and the variable label.  Since the
variable label begins with the question tag, the question tag only appears
once, as part of the variable label.

LINES 05-08
This describes who is being asked the question, inverse to the INAP
conditions (lines 34-35).  Each line ending with ":" describes one condition
that has been met to reach this question.
"/" at the end of a line is equivalent to an "OR" between the condition
preceding and the condition following the "/".  In this example, respondents
who were asked this question were respondents who 1) said they voted, and
who 2) said they voted specifically for President, and who 3) voted for a
major party Presidential candidate OR for another party's candidate.  Note
that a corresponding "/" sometimes appears in the question text when
question wording varies according to which of the OR conditions applies. See
lines 12-17.

LINES 12-17
Several conventions are observed in codebook presentation of question text.
1) Text bracketed between ">" and "<" (line 12, line 15) indicates that
   case-specific text was loaded onto the instrument by the survey
   application.
   In this example, ">NAME OF MAJOR PARTY<" indicates that either 
   "Democratic" or "Republican" was loaded into the question text, 
   depending up which major party candidate R indicated he had voted for
   earlier in the questionnaire   
2) Text bracketed between "[" and "]" (lines 12-14; line 15) displays
   text options, separated by "/".  In this example, the first option is for
   Rs who had voted for a major party candidate; the first 2 sentences read
   to these respondent are:
  "You've indicated that you voted for the >NAME OF MAJOR PARTY< 
   Presidential candidate in 2004. How well has the >NAME OF MAJOR PARTY<
   party performed over the past four years?"
   On the other hand, in this example, if R voted for another party's
   candidate, the first 2 sentences are:
  "You've indicated that you voted for the >NAME OF OTHER PARTY< party in
   2004. How well has that party performed over the past four years?"
3) Text in parentheses (line 17) is read at the interviewer's discretion.
4) Text in CAPS, other than text bracketed with ">" "<" per 1), indicates
   words or phrases that appeared underlined in the instrument for emphasis.
   In this example (lines 16-17), the words "very good", "good", "bad", and 
   "very bad" had appeared underlined for interviewer emphasis..

LINE 21
With few exceptions, interviewer instructions appear in the instrument
immediately following the question text.

LINES 34-35
INAP describes the specific paths of all respondents whom the instrument
skips over the question.  Each condition which results in a skip is listed,
separated by ";".>> 2004 Variable Description List
_________________________________


============================================================================
 Variable      Description
============================================================================

           STUDY IDS

  VERSION      Study.1. Dataset version
  DSETID       Study.1. Dataset ID number
  V040001      Study.3. 2004 Pre Case ID
  V040002      Study.4. 2004 Post Case ID

          STUDY WEIGHTS AND SAMPLING ERROR CODE

  V040101      Study.5. Pre-election post-stratified sample weight
  V040102      Study.6. Post-election post-stratified sample weight
  V040103      Study.7. Sampling error code

          STUDY DESCRIPTIVE 

  V041001      Study.8. Pre only or pre and post interviews
  V041101      HHListing.1. HH listing summary: number of persons in HH
  V041102      HHListing.2. HH listing summary: number of adults in HH
  V041102a     HHListing.2a. HH listing summary: no. eligible adults in HH
  V041102b     HHListing.2b. HH listing summary:no. ineligible adults in HH
  V041102c     HHListing.2c. HH listing summary: no. female adults in HH
  V041103      HHListing.3. HH listing summary: number of children in HH
  V041104      HHListing.4. HH listing summary: no. female children in HH
  V041105      HHListing.5. HH listing summary: no. children under 5 in HH
  V041106      HHListing.6. HH listing summary: no. children age 5-9 in HH
  V041107      HHListing.7. HH listing summary:no. children age 10-13 in HH
  V041108      HHListing.8. HH listing summary:no. children age 14-17 in HH
  V041109      HHListing.9. Respondent person number in HH listing
  V041109a     HHListing.9a. Respondent gender
  V041109b     HHListing.9b. Respondent relationship to informant
  V041109c     HHListing.9c. Respondent's number of children in HH
  V041109d     HHListing.9d. Respondent's number of female children in HH
  V041110      HHListing.10. Household composition
  V041111a     HHListing.11a. 1st HH adult - age
  V041111b     HHListing.11b. 1st HH adult - gender
  V041112a     HHListing.12a. 2nd HH adult age
  V041112b     HHListing.12b. 2nd HH adult gender
  V041113a     HHListing.13a. 3rd HH adult age
  V041113b     HHListing.13b. 3rd HH adult gender
  V041114a     HHListing.14a. 4th HH adult age
  V041114b     HHListing.14b. 4th HH adult gender
  V041115a     HHListing.15a. 5th HH adult age
  V041115b     HHListing.15c. 5th HH adult gender
  V041116a     HHListing.16a. 6th HH adult age
  V041116b     HHListing.16b. 6th HH adult gender
  V041201      Sampling.1. State name
  V041201a     Sampling.1a. Postal abbreviation of state
  V041202      Sampling.2. FIPS state code
  V041203      Sampling.3. ICPSR state code
  V041204      Sampling.4. Congressional District number
  V041204a     Sampling.4a. State postal abbrev and congr district number
  V041204b     Sampling.4b. State FIPS code and congr district number
  V041204c     Sampling.4c. State ICPSR code and congr district number
  V041205      Sampling.5. Census region
  V041206      Sampling.6. Primary area (PSU) number
  V041206a     Sampling.6a. PSU name
  V041207      Sampling.7. Segment number
  V041207a     Sampling.7a. Segment name
  V041208      Sampling.8. FIPS state-county code
  V041208a     Sampling.8a. FIPS county name
  V041209      Sampling.9. Census tract
  V041210      Sampling.10. Census Place code
  V041211      Sampling.11. Census Minor Civil Division (MCD)
  V041212      Sampling.12. Census MSA 1990
  V041213      Sampling.13. Census Urban/Rural classification
  V041214      Sampling.14. Census CSA 2000
  V041214a     Sampling.14a. Census CBSA

          PRE-ELECTION FIELD AND ADMINISTRATION

  V042001      PreAdmin.1. Form of interview
  V042002      PreAdmin.2. Pre IW beginning month
  V042003      PreAdmin.3. Pre IW beginning day
  V042004      PreAdmin.4. Pre IW beginning date MMDD
  V042005      PreAdmin.5. Pre IW beginning version of instrument
  V042006      PreAdmin.6. Pre IW ending month
  V042007      PreAdmin.7. Pre IW ending day
  V042008      PreAdmin.8. Pre IW ending date MMDD
  V042009      PreAdmin.9. Pre IW ending version of instrument
  V042010a     PreAdmin.10a. No. days before election beginning IW date
  V042010b     PreAdmin.10b. No. days before election ending IW date
  V042011      PreAdmin.11. Total number of Pre interview sessions
  V042012      PreAdmin.12. Pre instrument version changed before IW end
  V042013      PreAdmin.13. Total number of Pre interviewers
  V042014a     PreAdmin.14a. Pre IW session 1 date MMDD
  V042014b     PreAdmin.14b. Pre IW session 2 date MMDD
  V042014c     PreAdmin.14c. Pre IW session 3 date MMDD
  V042014d     PreAdmin.14d. Pre IW session 4 date MMDD
  V042015a     PreAdmin.15a. Pre IW session 1 version of instrument
  V042015b     PreAdmin.15b. Pre IW session 2 version of instrument
  V042015c     PreAdmin.15c. Pre IW session 3 version of instrument
  V042015d     PreAdmin.15d. Pre IW session 4 version of instrument
  V042016a     PreAdmin.16a. Pre IW session 1 breakoff/end
  V042016b     PreAdmin.16b. Pre IW session 2 breakoff/end
  V042016c     PreAdmin.16c. Pre IW session 3 breakoff/end
  V042017      PreAdmin.17. Total number of calls
  V042018      PreAdmin.18. Number of FTF calls
  V042019      PreAdmin.19. Number of phone calls
  V042020      PreAdmin.20. Interviewer interview number (nth IW)
  V042021      PreAdmin.21. Refusal conversion indicator
  V042022      PreAdmin.22. Release
  V042023      PreAdmin.23. Mode of interview
  V042024      PreAdmin.24. Result
  V042025      PreAdmin.25. Length of interview
  V042026      PreAdmin.26. Language of interview
  V042027      PreAdmin.27. Interview verification
  V042028      PreAdmin.28. Interviewer evaluation
  V042029      PreAdmin.29. Interview tape-recorded
  V042030      PreAdmin.30. Payment offer amount
  V042031      PreAdmin.31. Payment amount
  V042032      PreAdmin.32. Payment date
  V042033      PreAdmin.33. Payment mode
  V042034      PreAdmin.34 Respondent incentive
  V042035      PreAdmin.35. Persuasion letters
  V042036a     PreAdmin.36x1a. Summary: R made positive comment
  V042036b     PreAdmin.36x1b. Summary: R made time-delay comment
  V042036c     PreAdmin.36x1c. Summary: R made negative comment
  V042036d     PreAdmin.36x1d. Summary: R made eligibility comment
  V042036e     PreAdmin.36x1e. Summary: R made privacy comment
  V042036f     PreAdmin.36x1f. Summary: R made comment no int in politics
  V042037a     PreAdmin.37a. Comment: positive - help community
  V042037b     PreAdmin.37b. Comment: positive - enjoy surveys
  V042037c     PreAdmin.37c. Comment: other positive
  V042037d     PreAdmin.37d. Comment: time delay - too busy
  V042037e     PreAdmin.37e. Comment: time delay - bad time
  V042037f     PreAdmin.37f. Comment: time delay - think about it
  V042037g     PreAdmin.37g. Comment: other time delay
  V042037h     PreAdmin.37h. Comment: negative - waste of time
  V042037j     PreAdmin.37j. Comment: negative - don't trust surveys
  V042037k     PreAdmin.37k. Comment: negative - surveys waste money
  V042037m     PreAdmin.37m. Comment: negative - never do surveys
  V042037n     PreAdmin.37n. Comment: negative - not interested
  V042037p     PreAdmin.37p. Comment: other negative
  V042037q     PreAdmin.37q. Comment: eligibility -don't know about topic
  V042037r     PreAdmin.37r. Comment: eligibility - no spouse/partn/child
  V042037s     PreAdmin.37s. Comment: eligibility - too young/too old
  V042037t     PreAdmin.37t. Comment: eligibility - don't/can't vote
  V042037u     PreAdmin.37u. Comment: other eligibility
  V042037v     PreAdmin.37v. Comment: privacy - personal questions
  V042037w     PreAdmin.37w. Comment: privacy - govt knows everything
  V042037y     PreAdmin.37y. Comment: other privacy
  V042038      PreAdmin.38. Respondent initial refusal
  V042039      PreAdmin.39. Informant initial refusal
  V042040      PreAdmin.40. Type of structure
  V042041      PreAdmin.41. Structure description
  V042042      PreAdmin.42. Structure residential status
  V042043      PreAdmin.43. Observed urbanicity of segment
  V042044      PreAdmin.44. Political signs
  V042044a     PreAdmin.44a. Type political sign 1
  V042044b     PreAdmin.44b. Type political sign 2
  V042045x     PreAdmin.45x. Summary: any specified impediment noted
  V042045a     PreAdmin.45a. Structure impediment - locked entrance
  V042045b     PreAdmin.45b. Structure impediment - locked gates
  V042045c     PreAdmin.45c. Structure impediment - gatekeeper
  V042045d     PreAdmin.45d. Structure impediment - intercom
  V042046x     PreAdmin.46x. Summary: any specified security measure
  V042046a     PreAdmin.46a. Structure security - bars
  V042046b     PreAdmin.46b. Structure security - crime watch/sec system
  V042046c     PreAdmin.46c. Structure security - no trespassing sign
  V042046d     PreAdmin.46d. Structure security - security door
  V042046e     PreAdmin.46e. Structure security - guard dogs
  V042047      PreAdmin.47. Gatekeeper present
  V042047a     PreAdmin.47a. Type gatekeeper
  V042048a     PreAdmin.48a. Summary: gatekeeper status
  V042048b     PreAdmin.48b. Summary: locked status

          PRE-ELECTION INTERVIEWER DESCRIPTION

  V042101      PreIwr.1. Interviewer of record ID
  V042101a     PreIwr.1a. Other interviewer ID
  V042102      PreIwr.2. Supervisor ID
  V042103      PreIwr.3. Interviewer gender
  V042104      PreIwr.4. Interviewer education level
  V042105      PreIwr.5. Interviewer race
  V042106      PreIwr.6. Interviewer ethnicity
  V042107      PreIwr.7. Interviewer languages
  V042108      PreIwr.8. Interviewer experience
  V042109      PreIwr.9. Interviewer age group


          PRE-ELECTION ERROR FLAGS

  V042201      PreErr.1. Pre interview error flag
  V042202      PreErr.2. Pre interview error flag

          PRE-ELECTION RANDOMIZATION

  V042401      PreRand.1. Random order Pres cands A3-A6 Likes-Dislikes
  V042402      PreRand.2. Random order Pres cands B1b-B1c thermometers
  V042403a     PreRand.3a. Random order B1d Cheney thermometer
  V042403b     PreRand.3b. Random order B1e John Edwards thermometer
  V042403c     PreRand.3c. Random order B1f Laura Bush thermometer
  V042403d     PreRand.3d. Random order B1g Hillary Clinton thermometer
  V042403e     PreRand.3e. Random order B1h Bill Clinton thermometer
  V042403f     PreRand.3f. Random order B1j Colin Powell thermometer
  V042403g     PreRand.3g. Random order B1k John Ashcroft thermometer
  V042403h     PreRand.3h. Random order B1m John McCain thermometer
  V042404      PreRand.4. Random order parties B1n-B1p thermometers
  V042405      PreRand.5. Random order parties C1-C2 Likes-Dislikes
  V042406      PreRand.6. Random order Pres cands D1-D2 affects
  V042407a     PreRand.7a. Random order D1a Bush angry affect
  V042407b     PreRand.7b. Random order D1b Bush hopeful affect
  V042407c     PreRand.7c. Random order D1c Bush afraid affect
  V042407d     PreRand.7d. Random order D1d Bush proud affect
  V042408a     PreRand.8a. Random order D2a Kerry angry affect
  V042408b     PreRand.8b. Random order D2b Kerry hopeful affect
  V042408c     PreRand.8c. Random order D2c Kerry afraid affect
  V042408d     PreRand.8d. Random order D2d Kerry proud affect
  V042409      PreRand.9. Random order Pres cand E3-E4 liberal-conservative
  V042410      PreRand.10. Random order parties E5-E6 liberal-conservative
  V042411      PreRand.11. Random order F3-F6 unemployment or inflation
  V042412      PreRand.12. Random order names G1-G3 party performance
  V042413      PreRand.13. Random order Pres cands K1-K2 traits
  V042414a     PreRand.14a.  Random order K1a Bush moral trait
  V042414b     PreRand.14b.  Random order K1b Bush leadership trait
  V042414c     PreRand.14c.  Random order K1c Bush cares trait
  V042414d     PreRand.14d.  Random order K1d Bush knowledgeable trait
  V042414e     PreRand.14e.  Random order K1e Bush intelligent trait
  V042414f     PreRand.14f.  Random order K1f Bush dishonest trait
  V042414g     PreRand.14g.  Random order K1g Bush make up mind trait
  V042415a     PreRand.15a.  Random order K1a Kerry moral trait
  V042415b     PreRand.15b.  Random order K1b Kerry leadership trait
  V042415c     PreRand.15c.  Random order K1c Kerry cares trait
  V042415d     PreRand.15d.  Random order K1d Kerry knowledgeable trait
  V042415e     PreRand.15e.  Random order K1e Kerry intelligent trait
  V042415f     PreRand.15f.  Random order K1f Kerry dishonest trait
  V042415g     PreRand.15g.  Random order K1g Kerry make up mind trait
  V042416      PreRand.16. Random order Pres cands N1b-c spending-services
  V042417      PreRand.17. Random order parties N1d-e spending-services
  V042418      PreRand.18. Random order Pres cands N2b-c defense spending
  V042419      PreRand.19. Random order parties N2d-e defense spending
  V042420      PreRand.20. Random order Pres cands N5b-c guaranteed jobs
  V042421      PreRand.21. Random order parties N5d-e guaranteed jobs
  V042422      PreRand.22. Random order Pres cands N6b-c aid to blacks
  V042423      PreRand.23. Random order parties N6d-e aid to blacks
  V042424a     PreRand.24a. Random order P1b Social Security Fed. spending
  V042424b     PreRand.24b. Random order P1c public schools Fed. spending
  V042424c     PreRand.24c.  Random order P1d science/tech Fed. spending
  V042424d     PreRand.24d.  Random order P1e prevent crime Fed. spending
  V042424e     PreRand.24e.  Random order P1f welfare Fed. spending
  V042424f     PreRand.24f.  Random order P1g child care Fed. spending
  V042424g     PreRand.24g.  Random order P1h foreign aid Fed. spending
  V042424h     PreRand.24h.  Random order P1j aid to poor Fed. spending
  V042424j     PreRand.24j.  Random order P1k illegal immigr Fed. spending
  V042424k     PreRand.24k.  Random order P1m war on terror Fed. spending
  V042425      PreRand.25. Random order Pres cands P3b-c environment/jobs
  V042426      PreRand.26. Random order Pres cands P5b-c gun control
  V042427      PreRand.27. Random order Pres cands P6b-c women's role
  V042428      PreRand.28. Random order parties P6d-e women's role

          PRE-ELECTION SURVEY

  V043001      A1. Interested in following campaigns?
  V043002      A1a. Did R vote 2000?
  V043003      A1a1. Recall of last President vote choice
  V043004      A2. Was 2000 Pres election fair or unfair
  V043005      A2a. How strongly feels 2000 Pres election was fair/unfair
  V043006      A3a. Is there anything R likes about GW Bush
  V043007      A3b. Summary: No. Mentions - Likes About GW Bush
  V043007a     A3b1. What does R like about GW Bush MENTION 1
  V043007b     A3b2. What does R like about GW Bush MENTION 2
  V043007c     A3b3. What does R like about GW Bush MENTION 3
  V043007d     A3b4. What does R like about GW Bush MENTION 4
  V043007e     A3b5. What does R like about GW Bush MENTION 5
  V043008      A4a. Is there anything R dislikes about GW Bush
  V043009      A4b. Summary: No. Mentions - Dislikes About GW Bush
  V043009a     A4b1. What does R dislike about GW Bush MENTION 1
  V043009b     A4b2. What does R dislike about GW Bush MENTION 2
  V043009c     A4b3. What does R dislike about GW Bush MENTION 3
  V043009d     A4b4. What does R dislike about GW Bush MENTION 4
  V043009e     A4b5. What does R dislike about GW Bush MENTION 5
  V043010      A5a. Is there anything R likes about Kerry
  V043011      A5b. Summary: No. Mentions - Likes About John Kerry
  V043011a     A5b1. What does R like about John Kerry MENTION 1
  V043011b     A5b2. What does R like about John Kerry MENTION 2
  V043011c     A5b3. What does R like about John Kerry MENTION 3
  V043011d     A5b4. What does R like about John Kerry MENTION 4
  V043011e     A5b5. What does R like about John Kerry MENTION 5
  V043012      A6a. Is there anything R dislikes about Kerry
  V043013      A6b. Summary: No. Mentions - Dislikes About John Kerry
  V043013a     A6b1. What does R dislike about John Kerry MENTION 1
  V043013b     A6b2. What does R dislike about John Kerry MENTION 2
  V043013c     A6b3. What does R dislike about John Kerry MENTION 3
  V043013d     A6b4. What does R dislike about John Kerry MENTION 4
  V043013e     A6b5. What does R dislike about John Kerry MENTION 5
  V043014      A7. Days past week watch natl news on TV
  V043015      A7a. Attention to national (network) news
  V043016      A8a. Days past week watch local TV news late aft/early eve
  V043017      A8b. Days past week watch local news on TV in the late eve
  V043018      A8c. Attention to local news
  V043019      A9. How many days past week read a daily newspaper?
  V043020      A9(1). How many days past week read a daily online newsp
  V043021      A9a. Did R read about campaign in newspaper?
  V043022      A9a1. Attention to newspaper articles
  V043023      A10. Are things in the country on right track
  V043024      A10a. Presidential approval: general job handling
  V043025      A10a1. Presidential approval: general job handling strength
  V043026      A10b. Approval of Presidents handling of economy
  V043027      A10b1. Strength approve/disappr President handling of econ
  V043028      A10c. Approval of President handling foreign relations
  V043029      A10c1. Strength approve/disappr Pres handling foreign rel
  V043030      A10d. Approve Bush handling budget deficit
  V043031      A10d1. Strength approve/disappr Bush handling budget defct
  V043032      A10e. Approve Bush handling war on terror
  V043033      A10e1. Strength approve/disappr Bush handling war on terr
  V043034      A11. Are things in the country on right track
  V043034x     A11x. SUMMARY: A10/A11 country on right track
  V043035      A12. Care who wins House election
  V043036      A13. Approval of Congress handling its job
  V043037      A13a. Strength appr/disapprove Congress handling its job
  V043038      B1a. Feeling Thermometer: GW Bush
  V043039      B1b. Feeling Thermometer: John Kerry
  V043040      B1c. Feeling Thermometer: Nader
  V043041      B1d. Feeling Thermometer: Cheney
  V043042      B1e. Feeling Thermometer: John Edwards
  V043043      B1f. Feeling Thermometer: Laura Bush
  V043044      B1g. Feeling Thermometer: Hillary Clinton
  V043045      B1h. Feeling Thermometer: Bill Clinton
  V043046      B1j. Feeling Thermometer: Colin Powell
  V043047      B1k. Feeling Thermometer: John Ashcroft
  V043048      B1m. Feeling Thermometer: John McCain
  V043049      B1n. Feeling Thermometer: Democratic party
  V043050      B1p. Feeling Thermometer: Republican party
  V043051      B1q. Feeling Thermometer: Ronald Reagan
  V043052      C1a. Is there anything R likes about Democratic Party
  V043053      C1b. Summary: No. Mentions - Likes About Democratic Party
  V043053a     C1b1. What does R like about Democratic Party MENTION 1
  V043053b     C1b2. What does R like about Democratic Party MENTION 2
  V043053c     C1b3. What does R like about Democratic Party MENTION 3
  V043053d     C1b4. What does R like about Democratic Party MENTION 4
  V043053e     C1b5. What does R like about Democratic Party MENTION 5
  V043054      C1c. Is there anything R dislikes about Democratic Party
  V043055      C1d. Summary: No. Mentions - Dislikes About Democratic Party
  V043055a     C1d1. What does R dislike about Democratic Party MENTION 1
  V043055b     C1d2. What does R dislike about Democratic Party MENTION 2
  V043055c     C1d3. What does R dislike about Democratic Party MENTION 3
  V043055d     C1d4. What does R dislike about Democratic Party MENTION 4
  V043055e     C1d5. What does R dislike about Democratic Party MENTION 5
  V043056      C2a. Is there anything R likes about Republican Party
  V043057      C2b. Summary: No. Mentions - Likes About Republican Party
  V043057a     C2b1. What does R like about Republican Party MENTION 1
  V043057b     C2b2. What does R like about Republican Party MENTION 2
  V043057c     C2b3. What does R like about Republican Party MENTION 3
  V043057d     C2b4. What does R like about Republican Party MENTION 4
  V043057e     C2b5. What does R like about Republican Party MENTION 5
  V043058      C2c. Is there anything R dislikes about Republican Party
  V043059      C2d. Summary: No. Mentions - Dislikes About Republican Party
  V043059a     C2d1. What does R dislike about Republican Party MENTION 1
  V043059b     C2d2. What does R dislike about Republican Party MENTION 2
  V043059c     C2d3. What does R dislike about Republican Party MENTION 3
  V043059d     C2d4. What does R dislike about Republican Party MENTION 4
  V043059e     C2d5. What does R dislike about Republican Party MENTION 5
  V043060      C3. Better when one party controls presidency and Congress
  V043061      C4. R better/worse off than 1 year ago
  V043062      C4a. R how much better/worse off than 1 year ago
  V043063      C5. Will R be financially better/worse off year from now
  V043064      C5a. R how much better/worse off 1 year from now
  V043065      C6. Does R/spouse have any money invested in stock market
  V043066      C7. Did R put off medical treatment R could not afford
  V043067      C8. Can R afford needed health care
  V043068      C9. Does R have health insurance
  V043069      D1a. Affect for GW Bush: angry
  V043070      D1a1. How often GW Bush: angry
  V043071      D1b. Affect for GW Bush: hopeful
  V043072      D1b1. How often GW Bush: hopeful
  V043073      D1c. Affect for GW Bush: afraid
  V043074      D1c1. How often GW Bush: afraid
  V043075      D1d. Affect for GW Bush: proud
  V043076      D1d1. How often GW Bush: proud
  V043077      D2a. Affect for Kerry: angry
  V043078      D2a1. How often Kerry: angry
  V043079      D2b. Affect for Kerry: hopeful
  V043080      D2b1. How often Kerry: hopeful
  V043081      D2c. Affect for Kerry: afraid
  V043082      D2c1. How often Kerry: afraid
  V043083      D2d. Affect for Kerry: proud
  V043084      D2d1. How often Kerry: proud
  V043085      E1a. Liberal/conservative self-placement -7-point scale
  V043085a     E1b. If R had to choose liberal or conservative self-place
  V043086      E1x. SUMMARY: R self-placement liberal-conservative
  V043087      E2. Liberal/conservative Placement - GW Bush
  V043088      E3. Liberal/conservative Placement - Kerry
  V043089      E4. Liberal/conservative Placement - Nader
  V043090      E5. Liberal/conservative Placement - Dem Party
  V043091      E6. Liberal/conservative Placement - Rep party
  V043092      E7. Care who wins Presidential Election
  V043093      E8. Who does R think will be elected President?
  V043094      E8a. Will Pres race be close or will (winner) win by a lot
  V043095      E9. Which Pres cand will carry state
  V043096      E9a. Will Pres race be close in state
  V043097      F1. National economy better/worse in last year
  V043098      F1a. How much economy better/worse in last year
  V043099      F2. Will national economy be better or worse in next 12 mo
  V043100      F2a. How much economy better or worse in next 12 months
  V043101      F3. Unemployment better or worse in last year
  V043102      F3a. How much unemployment better or worse in last year
  V043103      F4. R think there more or less unemployment in next year
  V043104      F5. Inflation better or worse in last year
  V043105      F5a. Inflation much or somewhat better/worse in last year
  V043106      F6. Inflation in next year
  V043107      F7a. Interventionism by diplomacy/military: self-placement
  V043108      F7a1. Importance of diplomacy issue to R
  V043109      G1. Which party better: handling nations economy
  V043110      G2. Which party better: handle war on terrorism
  V043111      G3. Which party better: handle keeping out of war
  V043112      H1. During last year, U.S. position in world weaker/strong
  V043113      H2. Country would be better off if we just stayed home
  V043114      J1. Party ID: R think of self as Dem, Rep, Ind or what
  V043114a     J1a. Party Identification Democrat/Republican-strong/not
  V043115      J1b. No Party Identification-closer democrat or republican
  V043116      J1x. Summary: R party ID
  V043117      K1a. Traits for GW Bush: Moral
  V043118      K1b. Traits for GW Bush: Provides strong leadership
  V043119      K1c. Traits for GW Bush: really cares
  V043120      K1d. Traits for GW Bush: knowledgeable
  V043121      K1e. Traits for GW Bush: intelligent
  V043122      K1f. Traits for GW Bush: dishonest
  V043123      K1g. Traits for GW Bush: can't make up own mind
  V043124      K2a. Traits for Kerry: Moral
  V043125      K2b. Traits for Kerry: provides strong leadership
  V043126      K2c. Traits for Kerry: really cares about people like you
  V043127      K2d. Traits for Kerry: knowledgeable
  V043128      K2e. Traits for Kerry: intelligent
  V043129      K2f. Traits for Kerry: dishonest
  V043130      K2g. Traits for Kerry: can't make up mind
  V043131      M1a. War in Afghanistan worth the cost
  V043132      M2a. Approve Bush handling of war in Iraq
  V043133      M2a1. How much approve/disapprove Bush handling Iraq war
  V043134      M3. Was Iraq war worth the cost
  V043135      M4. Iraq war increased or decreased threat of terrorism
  V043136      N1a. Spending and Services - 7-point scale self-placement
  V043137      N1a1. Importance of spending/services issue to R
  V043138      N1b. Spending and Services Placement: GW Bush
  V043139      N1c. Spending and Services Placement: Kerry
  V043140      N1d. Spending and Services Placement: Dem party
  V043141      N1e. Spending and Services Placement: Rep party
  V043142      N2a. Defense spending - 7-point scale self-placement
  V043143      N2a1. Importance of defense spending issue to R
  V043144      N2b. Defense spending scale: GW Bush placement
  V043145      N2c. Defense spending scale: Kerry placement
  V043146      N2d. Defense spending scale: Dem party placement
  V043147      N2e. Defense spending scale: Rep party placement
  V043148      N3. Does R favor/oppose tax cuts Pres. Bush initiated
  V043149      N3a. How strongly R favors/opposes the Pres Bush tax cuts
  V043150      N4a. Govt/private medical insurance scale: self-placement
  V043151      N4a1. Importance of govt health insurance issue to R
  V043152      N5a. Job and Good Standard of Living -scale self-placement
  V043153      N5a1. Importance of guaranteed jobs/standard living issue
  V043154      N5b. Job and Good Standard of Living - GW Bush placement
  V043155      N5c. Job and Good Standard of Living - Kerry placement
  V043156      N5d. Job and Good Standard of Living - Dem party placement
  V043157      N5e. Job and Good Standard of Living - Rep party placement
  V043158      N6a. Government assistance to blacks-7 point scale self-pl
  V043159      N6a1. Importance of aid to blacks issue to R
  V043160      N6b. Aid to blacks Placement: GW Bush
  V043161      N6c. Aid to blacks Placement: Kerry
  V043162      N6d. Aid to blacks Placement: Dem party
  V043163      N6e. Aid to blacks Placement: Rep party
  V043164      P1a. Federal Budget Spending: building/repairing highways
  V043165      P1b. Federal Budget Spending: Social Security
  V043166      P1c. Federal Budget Spending: public schools
  V043167      P1d. Federal Budget Spending: science and technology
  V043168      P1e. Federal Budget Spending: dealing with crime
  V043169      P1f. Federal Budget Spending: welfare programs
  V043170      P1g. Federal Budget Spending: child care
  V043171      P1h. Federal Budget Spending: foreign aid
  V043172      P1j. Federal Budget Spending: aid to the poor
  V043173      P1k. Fed Budget Spending: border sec to prevent illeg imm
  V043174      P1m. Federal Budget Spending: war on terrorism
  V043175      P2a. Does R think pays right amount of taxes
  V043176      P2a1. Do rich pay right amount of taxes
  V043177      P2a2. Do poor pay right amount of taxes
  V043178      P2b. Favor govt funds to pay for abortions
  V043179      P2b1. Strength favor/oppose govt funds to pay for abortion
  V043180      P2c. Favor/oppose ban on late-term/partial-birth abortions
  V043181      P2c1. Strength favor/oppose ban on partial-birth abortions
  V043182      P3a. Environment vs. jobs tradeoff scale - self-placement
  V043183      P3a1. Importance of environment/jobs issue to R
  V043184      P3b. Environment vs. jobs tradeoff scale - GW Bush placemt
  V043185      P3c. Environment vs. jobs tradeoff scale - Kerry placement
  V043186      P4. R favor/oppose death penalty
  V043187      P4a. Strength R favors/opposes death penalty
  V043188      P5a. Should fed govt make more difficult to buy gun - self
  V043189      P5a1. How much easier/harder to buy gun - self-placement
  V043190      P5a2. Importance of gun access issue to R
  V043191      P5b. Easier or harder to buy gun - GW Bush
  V043192      P5b1. How much easier or harder to buy gun - GW Bush
  V043193      P5c. Easier or harder to buy gun - Kerry
  V043194      P5c1. How much easier or harder to buy gun - Kerry
  V043195      P5d. Does R have a gun in his or her home or garage?
  V043196      P6a. Women's role - 7-point scale self-placement
  V043197      P6a1. How important is the issue of women's equal role
  V043198      P6b. Women's role - GW Bush placement
  V043199      P6c. Women's role - Kerry placement
  V043200      P6d. Women's role - Dem party placement
  V043201      P6e. Women's role - Rep party placement
  V043202      Q1. Does R think will vote this November
  V043203      Q1a. Who does R think will/would vote for President
  V043204      Q1a1. Strength of pref for Pres cand R will/would vote for
  V043205      Q2a. How good does seeing US flag make R feel
  V043206      Q2b. Things about America that make R ashamed
  V043207      Q2c. Things about America that make R angry
  V043208      Q2d. How strong is love for country
  V043209      Q2e. How important is being an American
  V043210      R1. R position on gay marriage
  V043211      S2. Have taxes increased or decreased under GW Bush
  V043212      S2a. How much taxes increased or decreased under GW Bush
  V043213      S3. National economy better/worse since GW Bush took ofc
  V043214      S3a. How much national economy better/worse last 4 years
  V043215      S4. Has current admin made U.S. more/less secure
  V043216      S4a. How much more/less secure has admin made US
  V043217      S5. Has US moral climate gotten better/worse since 2000
  V043218      S5a. How much better/worse is moral climate since 2000
  V043219      W1. Is religion important part of R life?
  V043220      W2. Religion provides some guidance in day-to-day living
  V043221      W3. How often does R pray
  V043222      W4. Bible is word of God or men
  V043223      X1. Ever attend church/religious services?
  V043224      X1a. Attend religious services how often
  V043225      X1a1. Attend church more often than once a week?
  V043226      X2. Active at church besides attendance
  V043227      X2a. Active at church - meeting
  V043228      X2b. Active at church - speech
  V043229      X3. Ever think of self as part of church or denomination?
  V043230a     X3a. (Attends) R major religious group
  V043230b     X3b. (Nonattendance) R major religious group
  V043231      X4. Major relig denomination
  V043232      X4a. Specific Baptist denomination
  V043233      X4a1. Specific indep. Baptist denomination
  V043234      X4b. Specific Lutheran denomination
  V043235      X4c. Specific Methodist denomination
  V043236      X4d. Specific Presbyterian denomination
  V043237      X4e. Specific Reformed denomination
  V043238      X4f. Specific Brethren denomination
  V043239      X4g. Specific denomination for Just Christian
  V043240      X4h. Specific Church of Christ denomination
  V043241      X4j. Specific Church of God denomination
  V043242      X4k. Specific Holiness/Pentecostal denomination
  V043243      X5a. Specific other denomination
  V043244      X5b. Specific other denomination Christian?
  V043245a     X6a. (Attends) Specific Jewish denomination
  V043245b     X6b. (Nonattendance) Specific Jewish denomination
  V043246      X7x. Other specify text - all denominations X4a-X6b
  V043247      X8x1. SUMMARY: RESPONDENT MAJOR RELIGIOUS GROUP
  V043247a     X8x1a. SUMMARY: RESPONDENT MAJOR DENOMINATION
  V043248      X8x2. SUMMARY: RESPONDENT RELIGION FULL
  V043249a     Y1a. Birth date Year
  V043249b     Y1b. Birthdates Month
  V043250      Y1x. Summary: Respondent age
  V043251      Y2. Marital status
  V043251x     Y2x. SUMMARY Marital status
  V043252      Y3. Highest grade of school or year of college R completed
  V043253a     Y3a. Did R get high school diploma
  V043253b     Y3b. Highest degree R has earned
  V043254      Y3x. Summary: Respondent education level
  V043255      Y4. Spouse: highest grade or year of college
  V043256a     Y4a. Did spouse get high school diploma
  V043256b     Y4b. Highest degree spouse has earned
  V043257      Y4x. Summary: Spouse/partner education level
  V043258      Y5a. R military service
  V043259      Y5b. Family member military service
  V043260a     Y6(1). Employment summary: R employmt status 2-digit full
  V043260b     Y6(2). Employment summary: R employment status 1-digit
  V043260c     Y6c. Respondent initial employment status
  V043261      Y6x. Occupation in stacked variables Y6x1-Y6x7
  V043262a     Y6x1. STACKED: R past/current occupation 3 digit
  V043262b     Y6x2. STACKED: R past/current occupation 2 digit
  V043262c     Y6x3. STACKED: Collapsed past/current occup prestige score"    
  V043262d     Y6x4. STACKED: R past/current occupation prestige score
  V043262e     Y6x5. STACKED: Industry of R past/current occupation
  V043262f     Y6x6. STACKED: R past/current occ work(ed) for self
  V043262g     Y6x7. STACKED: R past/current occ work(ed) for govt
  V043262h     Y6x8. STACKED: R recent/current occ hours work(ed)
  V043262j     Y6x9. STACKED: R worried about losing/finding job
  V043262k     Y6x10. STACKED: R had job in last 6 months
  V043263      Y7. Current/past employment information
  V043264      Y7a. Initial status Homemaker/student: also working now?
  V043265      Y7b. Initial status Homemaker/student: job in last 6 month
  V043266a     Y8a. Initial status retiree - when retired Year
  V043266b     Y8b. Initial status retiree - when retired Month
  V043267      Y9. Initial status unempl/disabled - R ever work for pay
  V043268      Y10a. Initial status ret/dis/unemp/hmkr/stud - past occ 3
  V043268a     Y10b1. Initial status ret/dis/unemp/hmkr/stud - past occ 2
  V043268b     Y10b2. Init status ret/dis/unemp/hmkr/stu prestige collapsed 
  V043268c     Y10b3. Init status ret/dis/unem/hkr/stu -past occ prestige
  V043268d     Y10b4. Init status ret/dis/unemp/hmkr/stu occup 1990 3-digit
  V043268e     Y10b5. Init status ret/dis/unemp/hmkr/stu occup 1990 71-catg
  V043268f     Y10b6. Init status ret/dis/unemp/hmkr/stu occup 1990 14-catg
  V043269      Y10c. Init status ret/dis/unem/hkr/stu -past occ industry
  V043270      Y10d. Init status ret/dis/unem/hkr/stu -past occ self-empl
  V043271      Y10e. Init status ret/dis/unem/hkr/stu -past occ govt work
  V043272      Y11a. Initial status unemp/ret/dis - job in last 6 months
  V043273      Y12. Recent occupation: how many hours worked average
  V043274      Y13a. Initial status retired/disabled: also working now?
  V043275      Y14. Init status ret/dis/unemp/hmkr/stud: looking for wk?
  V043276      Y15. Init status ret/dis/unemp/hkr/stu: worried finding wk
  V043277      Y16. Summary: ret/dis/unemp/hkr/stu also working now?
  V043278      Y16a. Working/TLO now occupation 3 digit
  V043278a     Y16b. Working/TLO now occupation 2 digit
  V043278b     Y16b2. Init status ret/dis/unemp/hmkr/stu prestige collapsed
  V043278c     Y16d. Prestige score of working/TLO now occupation
  V043278d     Y16b4. Init status working/TLO now occup 1990 3-digit
  V043278e     Y16b5. Init status working/TLO now occup 1990 71-categ
  V043278f     Y16b6. Init status working/TLO now occup 1990 14-categ
  V043279      Y16c. Working/TLO - industry
  V043280      Y16d. Working/TLO now - work for self
  V043281      Y16e. Working/TLO now - work for govt
  V043282      Y16f. Working/TLO now - how many hours works
  V043283      Y16g. Working/TLO now - hours R works satisfactory
  V043284      Y16h. Working/TLO now: worried abt losing job near future
  V043285      Y16j. Working now: out of work or laid off last 6 mos
  V043286      Y16k. Working now: had reduction in work hours or pay
  V043287      Y17a. Working now/TLO: presentation at job in last 6 mos
  V043288      Y17b. Working now/TLO: plan/chair meetg at job last 6 mos
  V043289      Y18a1. Spouse/partner working status 1
  V043289a     Y18a2. Spouse/partner working status 2
  V043290      Y19. Anyone in HH belong to labor union?
  V043291      Y19a. Who in HH belongs to union
  V043292      Y20. INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT- PERSONS IN HH AGE 14 OR OLDER
  V043292x     Y20x. Summary: no. persons aged 14 and older
  V043293      Y21a. R not only HH member age 14+: Household income
  V043293x     Y21a. Summary: Household income
  V043294      Y21b. Respondent income
  V043295      Y22. Think of self as belonging to class?
  V043296      Y22a. Subjective Social Class: Working or Middle
  V043297      Y22b. Subjective Social Class: had to choose wkng/Middle
  V043298      Y23. Summary: subjective social class
  V043299      Y24x. SUMMARY: Race of Respondent
  V043299a     Y24a. Race of Respondent MENTION 1
  V043299b     Y24b. Race of Respondent MENTION 2
  V043300      Y25. Both parents born in U.S.?
  V043301a     Y26a. Main ethnic or nationality group mention 1
  V043301b     Y26b. Main ethnic or nationality group mention 2
  V043301c     Y26c. Main ethnic or nationality group mention 3
  V043302      Y27. Interviewer CKPT: number of ethnic mentions
  V043303      Y27a. Ethnic group most close
  V043303x     Y27ax. Summary: ethnic group
  V043304x     Y28x. Did R mention Hispanic group?
  V043305      Y28a. Is R of Hispanic descent
  V043306      Y29. Spanish or Hispanic descent - type
  V043307      Y30. Where R grew up
  V043308      Y31x. Summary: How long lived in this community
  V043309a     Y33a. Where R lived previously - state/country
  V043309b     Y33b. Where R lived previously - city
  V043310      Y34. Distance where R used to live
  V043311      Y32x. Summary: How long lived in current home
  V043312      Y35. Does R family own/rent home

          PRE-ELECTION INTERVIEWER OBSERVATION

  V043401a     ZZ1a. PRE IWR obs: others present - children under 6
  V043401b     ZZ1b. PRE IWR obs: others present - older children
  V043401c     ZZ1c. PRE IWR obs: others present - spouse
  V043401d     ZZ1d. PRE IWR obs: others present - other relatives
  V043401e     ZZ1e. PRE IWR obs: others present - other adults
  V043401f     ZZ1f. PRE IWR obs: others present - someone, not sure who
  V043402      ZZ2. PRE IWR OBS: R cooperation
  V043403      ZZ3. PRE IWR OBS: R level of information
  V043404      ZZ4. PRE IWR OBS: R intelligence
  V043405      ZZ5. PRE IWR OBS: R suspicious
  V043406      ZZ6. PRE IWR OBS: R interest in IW
  V043407      ZZ7. PRE IWR OBS: R sincere
  V043408      ZZ8. PRE IWR OBS: places where doubted R sincerity
  V043409      ZZ9. PRE IWR OBS: R seem to report income accurately
  V043409a     ZZ10. PRE IWR OBS: est of family income
  V043410      ZZ11. PRE IWR OBS: R age estimate
  V043411      ZZ11a. PRE IWR OBS: R gender
  V043412      ZZ12. PRE IWR OBS: R education estimate
  V043413a     ZZ13a.. PRE IWR OBS: Mention 1 - R reactions to IW
  V043413b     ZZ13b. PRE IWR OBS: Mention 2 - R reactions to IW
  V043413c     ZZ13c. PRE IWR OBS: Mention 3 - R reactions to IW
  V043413d     ZZ13d. PRE IWR OBS: Mention 4 - R reactions to IW
  V043413e     ZZ13e. PRE IWR OBS: Mention 5 - R reactions to IW
  V043413f     ZZ13f. PRE IWR OBS: Mention 6 - R reactions to IW
  V043413g     ZZ13g. PRE IWR OBS: Mention 7 - R reactions to IW

          POST-ELECTION FIELD AND ADMINISTRATION

  V044001      PostAdmin.1. Form of interview
  V044002      PostAdmin.2. Post IW beginning month
  V044003      PostAdmin.3. Post IW beginning day
  V044004      PostAdmin.4. Post IW beginning date MMDD
  V044005      PostAdmin.5. Post IW beginning version of instrument
  V044006      PostAdmin.6. Post IW ending month
  V044007      PostAdmin.7. Post IW ending day
  V044008      PostAdmin.8. Post IW ending date MMDD
  V044009      PostAdmin.9. Post IW ending version of instrument
  V044010a     PostAdmin.10a. No. days after election beginning IW date
  V044010b     PostAdmin.10b. No. days after election ending IW date
  V044011      PostAdmin.11. Total number of Post interview sessions
  V044012      PostAdmin.12. Post instrument version changed before IW end
  V044013      PostAdmin.13. Total number of Post interviewers
  V044014a     PostAdmin.14a. Post IW session 1 date MMDD
  V044014b     PostAdmin.14b. Post IW session 2 date MMDD
  V044014c     PostAdmin.14c. Post IW session 3 date MMDD
  V044015a     PostAdmin.15a. Post IW session 1 version of instrument
  V044015b     PostAdmin.15b. Post IW session 2 version of instrument
  V044015c     PostAdmin.15c. Post IW session 3 version of instrument
  V044016a     PostAdmin.16a. Post IW session 1 breakoff/end
  V044016b     PostAdmin.16b. Post IW session 2 breakoff/end
  V044017      PostAdmin.17. Total number of calls
  V044018      PostAdmin.18. Number of FTF calls
  V044019      PostAdmin.19. Number of phone calls
  V044020      PostAdmin.20. Interviewer interview number (nth IW)
  V044021      PostAdmin.21. Refusal conversion indicator
  V044022      PostAdmin.22. Post non-interview result date (MMDD)
  V044023      PostAdmin.23. Mode of interview
  V044024      PostAdmin.24. Result
  V044025      PostAdmin.25. Length of interview
  V044026      PostAdmin.26. Language of interview
  V044027      PostAdmin.27. Interview verification
  V044028      PostAdmin.28. Interviewer evaluation
  V044029      PostAdmin.29. Interview tape-recorded
  V044030      PostAdmin.30. Payment offer amount
  V044031      PostAdmin.31. Payment amount
  V044032      PostAdmin.32. Payment date
  V044033      PostAdmin.33. Payment mode
  V044034      PostAdmin.34 Respondent incentive
  V044035      PostAdmin.35. Persuasion letters
  V044036a     PostAdmin.36x1a. Summary: R made positive comment
  V044036b     PostAdmin.36x1b. Summary: R made time-delay comment
  V044036c     PostAdmin.36x1c. Summary: R made negative comment
  V044036d     PostAdmin.36x1d. Summary: R made eligibility comment
  V044036e     PostAdmin.36x1e. Summary: R made privacy comment
  V044036f     PostAdmin.36x1f. Summary: R made comment no int in politics
  V044037a     PostAdmin.37a. Comment: positive - help community
  V044037b     PostAdmin.37b. Comment: positive - enjoy surveys
  V044037c     PostAdmin.37c. Comment: other positive
  V044037d     PostAdmin.37d. Comment: time delay - too busy
  V044037e     PostAdmin.37e. Comment: time delay - bad time
  V044037f     PostAdmin.37f. Comment: time delay - think about it
  V044037g     PostAdmin.37g. Comment: other time delay
  V044037h     PostAdmin.37h. Comment: negative - waste of time
  V044037j     PostAdmin.37j. Comment: negative - don't trust surveys
  V044037k     PostAdmin.37k. Comment: negative - surveys waste money
  V044037m     PostAdmin.37m. Comment: negative - never do surveys
  V044037n     PostAdmin.37n. Comment: negative - not interested
  V044037p     PostAdmin.37p. Comment: other negative
  V044037q     PostAdmin.37q. Comment: eligibility-don't know about topic
  V044037r     PostAdmin.37r. Comment: eligibility -no spouse/partn/child
  V044037s     PostAdmin.37s. Comment: eligibility - too young/too old
  V044037t     PostAdmin.37t. Comment: eligibility - don't/can't vote
  V044037u     PostAdmin.37u. Comment: other eligibility
  V044037v     PostAdmin.37v. Comment: privacy - personal questions
  V044037w     PostAdmin.37w. Comment: privacy - govt knows everything
  V044037y     PostAdmin.37y. Comment: other privacy
  V044038      PostAdmin.38. Respondent initial refusal
  V044039      PostAdmin.39. Informant initial refusal

          POST-ELECTION INTERVIEWER DESCRIPTION

  V044101      PostIwr.1. Interviewer of record ID
  V044101a     PostIwr.1a. Other interviewer ID
  V044102      PostIwr.2. Supervisor ID
  V044103      PostIwr.3. Interviewer gender
  V044104      PostIwr.4. Interviewer education level
  V044105      PostIwr.5. Interviewer race
  V044106      PostIwr.6. Interviewer ethnicity
  V044107      PostIwr.7. Interviewer languages
  V044108      PostIwr.8. Interviewer experience
  V044109      PostIwr.9. Interviewer age group

          POST-ELECTION ERROR FLAGS

  V044201      PostErr.1. Post interview error flag

          POST-ELECTION RANDOMIZATION

  V044401      PostRand.1. Order of D1b-c Pres candidate thermometers
  V044402a     PostRand.2a. Order of D1d Democratic House cand thermometer
  V044402b     PostRand.2b. Order of D1e Republican House cand thermometer
  V044402c     PostRand.2c. Order of D1f Ind/3rd party House cand therm
  V044402d     PostRand.2d. Order of D1g retiring House incumbent therm
  V044403a     PostRand.3a. Order of D1h Democratic Senate cand thermometer
  V044403b     PostRand.3b. Order of D1j Republican Senate cand thermometer
  V044403c     PostRand.3c. Order of D1k Ind/3rd party Senate cand therm
  V044403d     PostRand.3d. Order of D1m Senator #1 thermometer
  V044403e     PostRand.3e. Order of D1n Senator #2 thermometer
  V044403f     PostRand.3f. Order of D1p Senator term not up thermometer
  V044404a     PostRand.4a. Order of D2a Hispanics thermometer
  V044404b     PostRand.4b. Order of D2b Christian fundamentalists therm
  V044404c     PostRand.4c. Order of D2c Catholics thermometer
  V044404d     PostRand.4d. Order of D2d feminists thermometer
  V044404e     PostRand.4e. Order of D2e Federal government thermometer
  V044404f     PostRand.4f. Order of D2f Jews thermometer
  V044404g     PostRand.4g. Order of D2g Liberals thermometer
  V044404h     PostRand.4h. Order of D2h middle class people thermometer
  V044404j     PostRand.4j. Order of D2j labor unions thermometer
  V044404k     PostRand.4k. Order of D2k poor people thermometer
  V044404m     PostRand.4m. Order of D2m the military thermometer
  V044404n     PostRand.4n. Order of D2n big business thermometer
  V044404p     PostRand.4p. Order of D2p people on welfare thermometer
  V044404q     PostRand.4q. Order of D2q conservatives thermometer
  V044404r     PostRand.4r. Order of D2r working class people thermometer
  V044404s     PostRand.4s. Order of D2s the elderly thermometer
  V044404t     PostRand.4t. Order of D2t environmentalists thermometer
  V044404u     PostRand.4u. Order of D2u US Supreme Court thermometer
  V044404v     PostRand.4v. Order of D2v gay men and lesbians thermometer
  V044404w     PostRand.4w. Order of D2w Asian Americans thermometer
  V044404y     PostRand.4y. Order of D2y Congress thermometer
  V044404z     PostRand.4z. Order of D2z blacks thermometer
  V044405a     PostRand.5a. Order of D2aa southerners thermometer
  V044405b     PostRand.5b. Order of D2ab men thermometer
  V044405c     PostRand.5c. Order of D2ac young people thermometer
  V044405d     PostRand.5d. Order of D2ad illegal immigrants thermometer
  V044405e     PostRand.5e. Order of D2ae rich people thermometer
  V044405f     PostRand.5f. Order of D2af women thermometer
  V044405g     PostRand.5g. Order of D2ag business people thermometer
  V044405h     PostRand.5h. Order of D2ah Catholic church thermometer
  V044405j     PostRand.5j. Order of D2aj whites thermometer
  V044405k     PostRand.5k. Order of D2ak Israel thermometer
  V044405m     PostRand.5m. Order of D2am Muslims thermometer
  V044406a     PostRand.6a. Order of F1a prevent nuclear weapons goal
  V044406b     PostRand.6b. Order of F1b promote human rights goal
  V044406c     PostRand.6c. Order of F1c strengthen U.N. goal
  V044406d     PostRand.6d. Order of F1d combat world hunger goal
  V044406e     PostRand.6e. Order of F1e  protect US jobs goal
  V044406f     PostRand.6f. Order of F1f promote democracy goal
  V044406g     PostRand.6g. Order of F1g control illegal immigration goal
  V044406h     PostRand.6h. Order of F1h promote market economies goal
  V044406j     PostRand.6j. Order of F1j combat intl terrorism goal
  V044407      PostRand.7. Order of G4b-c House cand lib-cons placement
  V044408      PostRand.8. Order of G5b-c House cand spending-serv placemt
  V044409      PostRand.9. Order of G6b-c Pres cand interventionism placemt
  V044410      PostRand.10. Order of G6d-e Hse cand interventionism placemt
  V044411      PostRand.11. Order of G6f-g party interventionism placemt
  V044412      PostRand.12. Order of G7b-c Pres cand abortion placement
  V044413      PostRand.13. Order of G7d-e Hse cand abortion placement
  V044414      PostRand.14. Order of G7f-g party abortion placement
  V044415a     PostRand.15a. Order of P4b blacks hardworking scale
  V044415b     PostRand.15b. Order of P4c Hispanics hardworking scale
  V044415c     PostRand.15c. Order of P4d Asian-Americans hardworking scale
  V044416a     PostRand.16a. Order of P5b blacks intelligent scale
  V044416b     PostRand.16b. Order of P5c Hispanics intelligent scale
  V044416c     PostRand.16c. Order of P5d Asian-Americans intelligent scale
  V044417a     PostRand.17a. Order of P6b blacks trustworthy scale
  V044417b     PostRand.17b. Order of P6c Asian-Americans trustworthy scale
  V044417c     PostRand.17c. Order of P6d Hispanics trustworthy scale

          POST-ELECTION CANDIDATES

  V044501      Cand.1. State and congressional district of IW
  V044502      Cand.2. Type of House race
  V044503a     Cand.3a. U.S. House Democratic candidate name
  V044503b     Cand.3b. U.S. House Democratic candidate code
  V044503c     Cand.3c. U.S. House Democratic candidate gender
  V044504a     Cand.4. U.S. House Republican candidate name
  V044504b     Cand.4b. U.S. House Republican candidate code
  V044504c     Cand.4c. U.S. House Republican candidate gender
  V044505a     Cand.5. U.S. House independent/third party candidate name
  V044505b     Cand.5b. U.S. House independent/third party candidate code
  V044505c     Cand.5c. U.S. House independent/third party cand gender
  V044505d     Cand.5d. U.S. House independent/third party cand party
  V044506a     Cand.6. U.S. House retiring incumbent name
  V044506b     Cand.6b. U.S. House retiring incumbent code
  V044506c     Cand.6c. U.S. House retiring incumbent gender
  V044507      Cand.7. Type of Senate race
  V044508a     Cand.8a. U.S. Senate Democratic candidate name
  V044508b     Cand.8b. U.S. Senate Democratic candidate code
  V044508c     Cand.8c. U.S. Senate Democratic candidate gender
  V044509a     Cand.9. U.S. Senate Republican candidate name
  V044509b     Cand.9b. U.S. Senate Republican candidate code
  V044509c     Cand.9c. U.S. Senate Republican candidate gender
  V044510a     Cand.10. U.S. Senate independent/third party cand name
  V044510b     Cand.10b. U.S. Senate independent/third party cand code
  V044510c     Cand.10c. U.S. Senate independent/third party cand gender
  V044510d     Cand.10d. U.S. Senate independent/third party cand party
  V044511a     Cand.11a.  U.S. Senator term not up (state with race) name
  V044511b     Cand.11b. U.S. Senator term not up (state with race) code
  V044511c     Cand.11c. U.S. Senator term not up (state with race) gender
  V044512a     Cand.12a.  U.S. Senator #1 (state without race) name
  V044512b     Cand.12b. U.S. Senator #1 (state without race) code
  V044512c     Cand.12c. U.S. Senator #1 (state without race) gender
  V044513a     Cand.13a.  U.S Senator #2 (state without race) name
  V044513b     Cand.13b. U.S. Senator #2 (state without race) code
  V044513c     Cand.13c. U.S. Senator #2 (state without race) gender
  V044514a     Cand.14a. Winner Party U.S. House race
  V044514b     Cand.14b. Winner Cand code U.S. House race
  V044515a     Cand.15a. Percent Incumbent House candidate
  V044515b     Cand.15b. Percent Democratic House candidate
  V044515c     Cand.15c. Percent Republican House candidate
  V044515d     Cand.15d. Percent Ind/3rd-party House candidate
  V044516a     Cand.16a. Winner Party U.S. Senate race
  V044516b     Cand.16b. Winner Cand code U.S. Senate race
  V044517a     Cand.17a. Percent Incumbent Senate candidate
  V044517b     Cand.17b. Percent Democratic Senate candidate
  V044517c     Cand.17c. Percent Republican Senate candidate
  V044517d     Cand.17d. Percent Ind/3rd-party House candidate

          POST-ELECTION SURVEY

  V045001      A1. How interested in political campaigns
  V045002      A2. Did R watch programs about campaign on TV
  V045002a     A2a. Watched how many programs about campaign on TV
  V045003      A3. How many days in past week watched TV news
  V045003a     A4. How much attention to news on TV about Pres campaign
  V045004      A5. Did R read about campaign in any magazines
  V045004a     A5a. How much atten to Pres campaign articles in magazines
  V045005      A6. R listen to campaign speeches or discussions on radio
  V045005a     A6a. How many campaign speeches or discussions on radio
  V045006      A7. How much attention to Pres campaign news in general
  V045007      A8. How much of the time trust media to report news fairly
  V045008      B1. Mobilization: anyone from political parties contact R
  V045008a     B1a. Mobilization: which political party contacted R
  V045009      B2. Mobilization: anyone other than parties contacted R
  V045010      B3. Campaign: R try to influence vote of others
  V045011      B4. Campaign: R go to campaign meetings, rallies, speeches
  V045012      B5. Campaign: R display campaign button/sticker/sign
  V045013      B6. Campaign: R do any other campaign work for party/cand
  V045014      B7. Contributions: R contribute to candidate
  V045014a     B7a. Contributions: party of candidate R contributed to
  V045015      B8. Contributions: Did R give money to party
  V045015a     B8a. Contributions: which party did R give money to
  V045016      B9. Did R give money to other group for/against cand/party
  V045017a     C1a. Did R vote (standard version)
  V045017b     C1b. Did R vote (experimental version)
  V045018      C2. Nonvoter: registered to vote in this election
  V045018x     C3.  Summary: vote and registration status
  V045019      C4. Is R registered in county of residence
  V045019a     C4a. State where registered if outside county of residence
  V045019b     C4b. County where registered if outside county of resid
  V045019c     C4c.Voter:state-distr where regist outside county of resid
  V045020x     C4x. Summary: voter registration in/out of county
  V045021x     C4x1. Voter summary: state of registr same as state of IW?
  V045022x     C4x2. Voter summary: distr of registr same as distr of IW?
  V045023      C5. Did R vote on election day or before
  V045023a     C5a. How long before election R voted
  V045024      C5a1. Did R vote in person or by absentee ballot
  V045025      C6. Voter: did R vote for President
  V045026      C6a. Voter: R's vote for President
  V045026a     C6a1. Voter: preference strength for Pres cand of vote
  V045027      C6b. Voter: how long before election decision on Pres vote
  V045028      C6c. Nonvoter: any preference for President
  V045029      C6c1. Nonvoter: what preference for President
  V045029a     C6c2. Nonvoter: strength of preference for President
  V045030x     C6x.  Summary: voter type
  V045031x     C7bx. Summary: Did R vote for House of Representatives
  V045032x     C7bx1. Summary: vote for party House of Representatives
  V045033x     C7bx2. Summary: vote for cand House of Representatives
  V045034      C7c. Nonvoter: did R prefer US House candidate
  V045035      C7c. Nonvoter: what US House candidate R preferred
  V045035x     C7dx. Nonvoter: cand code US House preference
  V045036x     C7x.  Summary: Senate race and voter status
  V045037x     C8bx. Summary: Did R vote for Senate
  V045038x     C8bx1. Summary: vote for party in Senate race
  V045039x     C8bx2. Summary: vote for cand in Senate race
  V045040      C8c. Nonvoter: did R prefer US Senate candidate
  V045041      C8c1. Nonvoter: what US Senate candidate R preferred
  V045041x     C8c2. Nonvoter: cand code US Senate preference
  V045042      C9. How fair was November election
  V045043      D1a. Feeling Thermometer: GW Bush
  V045044      D1b. Feeling Thermometer: John Kerry
  V045045      D1c. Feeling Thermometer: Ralph Nader
  V045046      D1d. Feeling Thermometer: Democratic House cand
  V045047      D1e. Feeling Thermometer: Republican House cand
  V045048      D1f. Feeling Thermometer: Ind/3rd party House cand
  V045049      D1g. Feeling Thermometer: Retiring incumbent
  V045050      D1h. Feeling Thermometer: Democratic Senate cand
  V045051      D1j. Feeling Thermometer: Republican Senate cand
  V045052      D1k. Feeling Thermometer: Ind/Third Party Senate cand
  V045053      D1m. Feeling Thermometer: Senator #1 in state with no race
  V045054      D1n. Feeling Thermometer: Senator #2 in state with no race
  V045055      D1p. Feeling Thermometer: Senator not up - state with race
  V045056      D2a. Feeling Thermometer: Hispanics (Hispanic-Americans)
  V045057      D2b. Feeling Thermometer: Christian Fundamentalists
  V045058      D2c. Feeling Thermometer: Catholics
  V045059      D2d. Feeling Thermometer: Feminists
  V045060      D2e. Feeling Thermometer: Federal Government in Washington
  V045061      D2f. Feeling Thermometer: Jews
  V045062      D2g. Feeling Thermometer: Liberals
  V045063      D2h. Feeling Thermometer - middle class people
  V045064      D2j. Feeling Thermometer: Labor Unions
  V045065      D2k. Feeling Thermometer: Poor people
  V045066      D2m. Feeling Thermometer: The Military
  V045067      D2n. Feeling Thermometer: Big Business
  V045068      D2p. Feeling Thermometer: People on welfare
  V045069      D2q. Feeling Thermometer: Conservatives
  V045070      D2r. Feeling Thermometer: working class people
  V045071      D2s. Feeling Thermometer: Older people (the elderly) 
  V045072      D2t. Feeling Thermometer: environmentalists
  V045073      D2u. Feeling Thermometer: U.S. Supreme Court
  V045074      D2v. Feeling Thermometer: Gay Men and Lesbians
  V045075      D2w. Feeling Thermometer: Asian Americans
  V045076      D2y. Feeling Thermometer: Congress
  V045077      D2z. Feeling Thermometer: Blacks
  V045078      D2aa. Feeling Thermometer - Southerners
  V045079      D2ab. Feeling Thermometer - men
  V045080      D2ac. Feeling Thermometer - young people
  V045081      D2ad. Feeling Thermometer - illegal immigrants
  V045082      D2ae. Feeling Thermometer - rich people
  V045083      D2af. Feeling Thermometer - women
  V045084      D2ag. Feeling Thermometer - business people
  V045085      D2ah. Feeling Thermometer - the Catholic Church
  V045086      D2aj. Feeling Thermometer: Whites
  V045087      D2ak. Feeling Thermometer: Israel
  V045088      D2am. Feeling Thermometer: Muslims
  V045089      E1a. Which party had most members in House prior to electn
  V045090      E1b. Which party had most members in Senate prior to elect
  V045091      E1x. Summary: type of House incumbent
  V045092      E2. Does R approve/disapprove House incumbent job
  V045092a     E2a. How strongly  R approves/disapproves House incumbent
  V045093      E3a. How often has House incumbent supported President
  V045094      E3b. How well House incumbent keeps in touch with district
  V045095      E4. How often R follows govt and public affairs
  V045096      E5a. Favor incr budget deficit to increase domestic spendg
  V045097      E5b. Favor increasing budget deficit to cut taxes
  V045098      E5c. Favor reduc spendg on domestic programs to cut  taxes
  V045099      F1a. US foreign policy goal: preventing spread of nuclear 
  V045100      F1b. US foreign policy goal: promote human rights
  V045101      F1c. US foreign policy goal: strengthen United Nations
  V045102      F1d. US foreign policy goal: combating world hunger
  V045103      F1e. US foreign policy goal: protect jobs of American wkrs
  V045104      F1f. US foreign policy goal: promote democracy
  V045105      F1g. US foreign policy goal: control illegal immigration
  V045106      F1h. US foreign policy goal: promote market economies abrd
  V045107      F1j. US foreign policy goal: combat intl terrorism
  V045108      F2. How important is it for US to have strong military
  V045109      F3. Have opinion - govt see to fair employmt for blacks
  V045109a     F3a. Should government see to fair employment for blacks?
  V045109b     F3a1. Strength feels govt should/shd not see to fair empl
  V045110      G1a. Favor reduc domestic spend progrs to cut budg deficit
  V045111      G1b. Favor increasing taxes to cut budget deficit
  V045112      G1c. Favor incr taxes to increase domestic spending progs
  V045113      G2a. Change in gap between rich and poor in last 20 yrs
  V045113a     G2a1. How much change in gap between rich and poor
  V045113b     G2b. Is change in gap between rich and poor good or bad
  V045114      G3. Favor or oppose limits on foreign imports
  V045115      G3a. Should immigration be increased, decreased, stay same
  V045116      G3b. Effect of Hispanic immigration: take jobs away
  V045117      G4a. Liberal/conservative 7-point scale: self-placement
  V045117a     G4a1. If R had to choose lib-con self-placement
  V045118      G4ax. Summary: liberal-conservative self-placement
  V045119      G4b. Liberal/conservative 7-point scale: US House Dem cand
  V045120      G4c. Liberal/conservative 7-point scale: US House Rep cand
  V045121      G5a. Services/spending tradeoff 7-pt scale: self-placement
  V045122      G5b. Services/spending tradeoff 7-pt scale: Dem House cand
  V045123      G5c. Services/spending tradeoff 7-pt scale: Rep House cand
  V045124      G6a. Interventionism by diplomacy/military: self-placement
  V045125      G6a1. Interventionism by diplomacy/military: importance
  V045126      G6b. Interventionism by diplomacy/military: GW Bush
  V045127      G6c. Interventionism by diplomacy/military: John Kerry
  V045128      G6d. Interventionism by diplomacy/military: Dem House cand
  V045129      G6e. Interventionism by diplomacy/military: Rep House cand
  V045130      G6f. Interventionism by diplomacy/military: Dem party
  V045131      G6g. Interventionism by diplomacy/military: Rep party
  V045132      G7a. Abortion position: self-placement
  V045133      G7a1. Importance of abortion issue to R
  V045134      G7b. Abortion position: GW Bush
  V045135      G7c. Abortion position: John Kerry
  V045136      G7d. Abortion position: Dem House candidate
  V045137      G7e. Abortion position: Rep House candidate
  V045138      G7f. Abortion position: Dem party
  V045139      G7g. Abortion position: Rep party
  V045140      H1a. R position on aid to Hispanic-Americans scale
  V045141      H1b. How important is issue of aid to Hispanic-Americans
  V045142      H2. What should federal govt do about outsourcing
  V045142a     H2a. How much should govt discourage/encourage outsourcing
  V045143      H3. Favor allowing Social Sec funds invested in the market
  V045143a     H3a. Strength favor/oppose investing Soc Sec funds in mkt
  V045143b     H3b. Summary: favor/oppose investing Soc Sec funds
  V045144      H4. Does R favor/oppose school vouchers
  V045144a     H4a. How strongly does R favor/oppose school vouchers
  V045145      H5. How good does seeing US flag make R feel
  V045145x     H5x. Summary: Pre-Post US flag makes R feel
  V045146      H6. Things about America that make R ashamed
  V045146x     H6x. Summary: Pre-Post America makes ashamed
  V045147      H7. Things about America that make R angry
  V045147x     H7x. Summary: Pre-Post America makes angry
  V045148      H8. How strong is love for country
  V045148x     H8x. Summary: Pre-Post how strong love for country
  V045149      H9. How important is being an American
  V045149x     H9x. Summary: Pre-Post importance of being American
  V045150      J1a. Limit Government: problems have become bigger
  V045151      J1b. Limit Government: need strong govt for complex probs
  V045152      J1c. Limit Government: less government the better
  V045153      J2. Does R ever talk politics with family and friends
  V045153a     J2a. How many days in past week R discussed politics
  V045154      J3. Does R listen to political talk radio
  V045155      J3a. Does R have access to the internet or web
  V045155a     J3b. Did R see any information about campaign on Web
  V045156      J4a. Should laws protect homosexuals against job discrim
  V045156a     J4a1. Strength favor/oppose laws to protect homosexuals
  V045157      J4b. Should homosexuals serve in U.S. armed forces
  V045157a     J4b1. Strength favor/oppose homosexuals in military
  V045158      J4c. Should homosexual couples be allowed to adopt
  V045159      J5a. Important differences between Democrats and Repubs
  V045160      J5b. Is one party is more conservative at national level
  V045160a     J5b1. Which party is more conservative at national level
  V045161      J6a. R have interest in equal treatment for women in jobs
  V045161a     J6b. R opinion on equal treatment for women in jobs
  V045161b     J6c. Strength opinion on equal treatment for women in jobs
  V045162      J7a. Politl knowledge office recognition Dennis Hastert
  V045162a     J7a1. PROBE used for recognition of Hastert
  V045163      J7b. Political knowledge office recognition Dick Cheney
  V045163a     J7b1. PROBE used for recognition of Cheney
  V045164      J7c. Political knowledge office recognition Tony Blair
  V045164a     J7c1. PROBE used for recognition of Blair
  V045165      J7d. Political knowledge office recognition Wm Rehnquist
  V045165a     J7d1. PROBE used for recognition of Rehnquist
  V045166      J8a. R worked/joined organization on community problem
  V045167      J8b. Contacted public official to express views
  V045168      J8c. Attended community meeting about issue
  V045169      J8d. R taken part in Protest or march in last year
  V045170      J9a. Is R a member of any organizations
  V045170a     J9a1. Number of organizations R is a member of
  V045171      J10. Able to devote time to volunteer work in last 12 mo
  V045172      J11. In last 12 mos, made contributions of money to church
  V045173      K0. Summary: R gender/race/ethnicity status
  V045174      K1. Is R linked to what happens with women
  V045174a     K1a. How much R linked to what happens to women
  V045175      K1b. R feeling pride in accomplishments of women
  V045176      K1c. R angry about the way women are treated in society
  V045177      K2. Is R linked to what happens to blacks
  V045177a     K2a. How much R linked to what happens with blacks
  V045178      K2b. R feeling pride in accomplishments of blacks
  V045179      K2c. R angry about the way blacks are treated in society
  V045180      K3. Is R linked to what happens to Hispanics
  V045180a     K3a. How much R linked to what happens with Hispanics
  V045181      K3b. R feeling pride in accomplishments of Hispanics
  V045182      K3c. R angry about the way Hispanics treated in society
  V045183      K4a. Women demanding equality seek special favors
  V045184      K4b. Women miss good jobs because of discrimination
  V045185      K4c.Women complaining abt harassment cause problems
  V045186      L1. Would R say most people can be trusted
  V045187      L2. Would people try to take advantage of R
  V045188      L3. Most people try to be helpful or look out for selves
  V045189      L4a. Should adjust moral views to changing world
  V045190      L4b. Newer lifestyles causing society breakdown
  V045191      L4c. Should be more tolerant of different moral standards
  V045192      L4d. Should be more emphasis on traditional family ties
  V045193      L5a. Blacks should work their way up like other groups
  V045194      L5b. History makes more difficult for blacks to succeed
  V045195      L5c. Blacks gotten less than they deserve
  V045196      L5d. Blacks should try harder to succeed
  V045197      M1a. How often trust government in Washington to do right
  V045198      M1b. Is govt run by few big interests or benefit of all
  V045199      M1c. How much does government waste tax money
  V045200      M1d. How many crooked people running government
  V045201      M2a. Public officials don't care what people think
  V045202      M2b. People like me don't have any say in what govt does
  V045203      M3a. How much attention does govt pay to what people think
  V045204      M3b. Elections make govt pay attn to what people think
  V045205      M4a. Working mother can have warm relationship with kids
  V045206      M4b. Better if woman cares for home-family and man achieve
  V045207      M5a. R for or against preference for blacks in jobs
  V045207a     M5b. Strength R favors/opposes preference for blacks in jobs
  V045208      N1a. Qualities for children: Independent or respect elders
  V045209      N1b. Qualities for children: Curiosity or good manners
  V045210      N1c. Qualities for children: Obedience or self-reliance
  V045211      N1d. Qualities for children: Considerate or well behaved
  V045212      N2a. Should do what is necessary for equal opportunity
  V045213      N2b. Have gone too far pushing equal rights
  V045214      N2c. Big problem is not giving everyone equal chance
  V045215      N2d. Better off if worried less about equality
  V045216      N2e. Not that big a problem if people have unequal chance
  V045217      N2f. Many fewer problems if people treated equally
  V045218      P1a. How opinionated is R
  V045219      P1b. R have fewer or more opinions than average
  V045219a     P1c. R have many or somewhat fewer/more opinions
  V045220      P2a. Does R like responsibility for thinking
  V045220a     P2b. How much R likes/dislikes responsibility for thinking
  V045221      P3. Does R like simple or complex problems
  V045222      P4a. Hardworking 7-pt scale: whites
  V045223      P4b. Hardworking 7-pt scale: blacks
  V045224      P4c. Hardworking 7-pt scale: Hispanic-Americans
  V045225      P4d. Hardworking 7-pt scale: Asian-Americans
  V045226      P5a. Intelligent 7-pt scale: whites
  V045227      P5b. Intelligent 7-pt scale: blacks
  V045228      P5c. Intelligent 7-pt scale: Hispanic-Americans
  V045229      P5d. Intelligent 7-pt scale: Asian-Americans
  V045230      P6a. Trustworthy 7-pt scale: whites
  V045231      P6b. Trustworthy 7-pt scale: blacks
  V045232      P6c. Trustworthy 7-pt scale: Hispanic-Americans
  V045233      P6d. Trustworthy 7-pt scale: Asian-Americans
  V045235      Q1a. CSES Did R talk to others to persuade how to vote
  V045235a     Q1a1. CSES How often R talked to others about how to vote
  V045236      Q2. CSES Did R attend meeting, etc. for party or candidate
  V045236a     Q2a. CSES How often R attended meeting etc. for party/cand
  V045237      Q3. CSES Did candidate or party contact R about vote
  V045238      Q4. CSES Most important issue in past 4 years
  V045239      Q4a. CSES How well has govt done on most imp issue
  V045240      Q5. CSES How good job in general govt has done past 4 yrs
  V045241      Q6. CSES How satisfied with democracy in US
  V045242      Q7. CSES Makes a difference who is in power
  V045243      Q8. CSES Who people vote for makes a difference
  V045244      Q9. CSES Democracy is best form of govt
  V045245      Q9x. Interviewer checkpoint - party of vote
  V045246      Q9a. CSES Party of Pres vote -party performance past 4 yrs
  V045247      Q10. CSES Elections ensure voters views are represented
  V045248      Q11. CSES Does any party represent Rs views
  V045248a     Q11a. CSES Which party represents R's views
  V045249      Q12. CSES Does any 2004 Pres cand represent R views
  V045249a     Q12a. CSES Which cand in last election represents R views
  V045250      Q13. CSES R think of self as close to any party
  V045250a     Q13a1. CSES Mention 1 party R thinks of self as close to
  V045250b     Q13a2. CSES Mention 2 party R thinks of self as close to
  V045251      Q13a0. CSES IWR checkpoint: number of parties R close to
  V045252      Q13a1. CSES Which party R feels closest to among multiple 
  V045253      Q13b. CSES Is R a little closer to one party than others
  V045253a     Q13b1. CSES If a little closer to one party, which one
  V045254      Q13x. CSES Summary: most close party
  V045255      Q14. CSES How close to this party
  V045257      Q15. CSES Like/dislike scale - Democratic Party
  V045258      Q16. CSES Like/dislike scale - Republican Party
  V045259      Q17. CSES Like/dislike scale - Reform party
  V045260      Q19. CSES Left-right scale - Democratic Party
  V045261      Q20. CSES Left-right scale - Republican Party
  V045262      Q21. CSES Left-right scale - Reform party
  V045263      Q22. CSES Left-right scale - GW Bush
  V045264      Q23. CSES Left-right scale - John Kerry
  V045265      Q24. CSES Left-right scale - Ralph Nader
  V045266      Q25a. CSES Has R contacted politician or govt official
  V045267      Q25b. CSES Has R taken part in protest or demonstration
  V045268      Q25c. CSES Has R worked with others on shared concern
  V045269      Q27a. CSES How much respect for human rights in US
  V045270      Q27b. CSES How much corruption in US
  V045271      Q28. CSES Left-Right scale - self placement

          POST-ELECTION INTERVIEWER OBSERVATION

  V045300a     Z1a. Flag Terminology Left-Right
  V045300b     Z1b. Flag Terminology Liberal-Conservative
  V045301a     ZZ1a. POST IWR obs: others present - children under 6
  V045301b     ZZ1b. POST IWR obs: others present - older children
  V045301c     ZZ1c. POST IWR obs: others present - spouse
  V045301d     ZZ1d. POST IWR obs: others present - other relatives
  V045301e     ZZ1e. POST IWR obs: others present - other adults
  V045301f     ZZ1f. POST IWR obs: others present - someone, not sure who
  V045302      ZZ2. POST IWR OBS: R cooperation
  V045303      ZZ3. POST IWR OBS: R level of information
  V045304      ZZ4. POST IWR OBS: R intelligence
  V045305      ZZ5. POST IWR OBS: R suspicious
  V045306      ZZ6. POST IWR OBS: R interest in IW
  V045307      ZZ7. POST IWR OBS: R sincere
  V045307a     ZZ7a. POST IWR OBS: places where doubted R sincerity
  V045308a     ZZ8a. POST IWR OBS: Mention 1 - R reactions to IW
  V045308b     ZZ8b. POST IWR OBS: Mention 2 - R reactions to IW
  V045308c     ZZ8c. POST IWR OBS: Mention 3 - R reactions to IW
  V045308d     ZZ8d. POST IWR OBS: Mention 4 - R reactions to IW
  V045308e     ZZ8e. POST IWR OBS: Mention 5 - R reactions to IW
  V045308f     ZZ8f. POST IWR OBS: Mention 6 - R reactions to IW
  V045308g     ZZ8g. POST IWR OBS: Mention 7 - R reactions to IW
